Clinical Negligence Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Viscount Hailsham

Main Page: Viscount Hailsham (Conservative - Life peer)

Clinical Negligence

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts
Tuesday 3rd March 2020

(4 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Lord is absolutely right; the total sum of money for claims on the liabilities book is second only to the potential costs of cleaning up our nuclear industry. He is also right that the discount rate is a critically important part of this extremely complex area. It is true that, in 2017, a change to the personal injury discount rate added significantly to damages awards over and above existing drivers. However, that increase was subsequently unwound in August 2019, following the introduction of the Civil Liability Act 2018, and the Government project that it will partially reduce the impact of PIDR in future claims.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that often, and for short-term economic reasons, health authorities have a tendency to settle low-value claims even though the justification for them is sometimes very slight? Does not this practice encourage further claims, very often backed by no-win no-fee agreements?

Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend is absolutely correct to emphasise the dangers of no-win no-fee arrangements, and in fact trusts have arranged for lawyers representing personal injury practices to leave the premises of trusts for that reason. However, the Government believe that the fixed recoverable costs consultation that ran in 2017 has powerful recommendations for tackling the issue which he describes, and we look forward to acting on the CJC report, published in October 2019.