---

Column 107

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Speed, Sir Keith

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Stern, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Sumberg, David

Sykes, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Trend, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Willetts, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Sydney Chapman and Dr. Liam Fox.

---

Column 107

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.--[ Mr. Conway. ]

---

Column 108

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some days ago, I tabled a series of questions to the Home Secretary about a contract issued in respect of a computer for the probation service. Those questions were duly accepted, and are listed as Nos. 186, 198, 209 and 231 on the Order Paper today. It is now after 10 o'clock and, in accordance with the normal conventions, those questions which were due for answer today should have been notified to me either by way of a written answer or by being tabled for the press. Neither has happened. It is clear that the answers to those questions will be in Hansard tomorrow, and it is also clear that the Home Office--officials of which I have been trying to contact all night--has deliberately avoided answering the questions on the named day. The reason it has done so is undoubtedly suspicious. We are talking here about a £20 million computer contract which may well be--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He must take the matter up with the Minister concerned, as it is not a matter for the Chair at this stage.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Bermingham rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on it, and there can be no further points of order on that matter.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Bermingham: No. Several times in the past, the Chair has ruled that it is the convention that Members--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has just ruled, and there can be no further points of order on that subject.

---

Column 109

Legal Services

10.8 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,

That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion: That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

Mr. Taylor: The order and regulations will bring into force the conditional fee provisions of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The scheme will greatly widen access to justice by enabling lawyers to act on a "no win, no fee" basis. To reflect the risk that that entails, lawyers will be able to charge an uplift on their normal fees if the litigation is successful. The Courts and Legal Services Act provides that the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the designated judges and the profession, should prescribe the types of proceedings in which conditional fee agreements would be allowable, the maximum percentage uplift that would be permitted and any other requirements that he considers necessary. Those matters are set out in the draft order and regulations.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): The Lord Chancellor, with his great expertise in Scottish law, will no doubt have considered the success of similar arrangements that have been available in Scotland for some time. What has been the uptake of those arrangements in Scotland, and how successful have they been?

Mr. Taylor: I will come back to that matter, but I can say that an uplift of 100 per cent. is exactly what has been allowed since 1992 under the Scottish speculative fee scheme. [Interruption.] I will answer at the end of the debate.

Personal injury litigation would seem particularly well suited to conditional fee agreements because although the uplift or "success fee", as it is often called, is not directly related to the amount of damages recovered, the fact that there will be a monetary award in successful cases will give the litigant the means to pay his lawyer's fees.

In the light of representations made during the consultation exercise to which I have referred, the Lord Chancellor decided to include insolvency proceedings and cases before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The Lord Chancellor has set the maximum uplift at 100 per cent. That will encourage lawyers to accept cases with a 50:50 chance of success which, if the uplift were lower, they might not be inclined to take. The whole purpose of the new arrangement is to extend access to justice.

I consider that the proposals will prove a valuable addition to the judicial system in this country, and I commend them to the House. 10.10 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): The Minister's failure to respond to the query of my--he is not an hon. Friend yet--the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) speaks volumes. Was his reticence due to a lack of information on his part? Will it

---

Column 110

soon be remedied by a flurry of notes and interest from the silent ones, or was it unlikely and, in my respectful submission, unhelpful reticence on the point? Perhaps the response will come any minute now, so I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Perhaps the Minister's reticence is due to the fact that in Scotland the self-same regulations--or at least regulations of a sort upon which the measures are based--have not produced any appreciable benefit to the consumer of legal services. It is by those criteria that the Opposition judge the measures. What will be the benefit not to the lawyer but to the consumer of legal services? On that issue, the jury is out.

Mr. Taylor: Actually, it is not. I have a letter dated 11 May from Meriel Thorne, the parliamentary officer of the Consumers Association. She states:

"As we made clear in our response to the various consultations from the Lord Chancellor's Department, we warmly support this provision. We support the new arrangements for the improved choice and access to justice they will provide for the large number of people currently prevented from enforcing their legal rights. We welcome"--

this is the Consumers Association--

"the means of support they will offer for those who would otherwise be deterred from pursuing their legal rights by the fear of legal costs."

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Withdraw.

---