To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take on the recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs.

My Lords, we are very grateful to Lord Justice Jackson for his remarkable report, which makes significant recommendations for reducing costs in the civil justice system. We are now actively assessing the implications of Sir Rupert’s proposals and how they should be taken forward. We will work with the senior judiciary and others to consider the options for reform and we will set out a more detailed timetable once we have completed our initial analysis.

I thank my noble friend for that reply. I recognise that it is too early for the Government to make a definitive decision, but does he recognise that there are serious and fundamental flaws in the present situation, particularly with regard to costs,? Too often, costs are much too high and constitute a real deterrent to many, especially claimants. Does he recognise that?

Indeed we do. There is a balance to be struck in ensuring both that appropriate claims can be brought to justice and that costs are proportionate. Sir Rupert’s report suggests that those objectives have got rather out of balance, with some costs becoming disproportionate. We will seek to ensure a better balance as we consider how to take the recommendations forward. My noble friend is right to say that, in some cases, claimants might currently be deterred from bringing claims because of the level of the defendant’s costs that they might have to pay if they lose the action. The Jackson report deals with this in a number of ways, such as through judicial cost management. We are considering how these should be taken forward.

Does the Minister accept that the rule of law in any democracy is meaningless without access to justice and that the proposed cuts to civil litigation funding by the Government will deny many people access to justice?

I do not recognise that at all as being the true position. If the noble Lord is referring to cuts in legal aid, let me say to him that there are some very marginal cuts in civil justice on the books, but we are determined to make sure that the vital part of legal aid, which is spent on social welfare law—giving legal advice on debt, housing and employment matters—is maintained, particularly at a time of recession.

My Lords, Lord Justice Jackson specifically indicated that claimants for personal injury incur undue deterrence when seeking to pursue their claims in the courts because of the rule that the loser pays the winner’s costs, which may be considerable in those cases. Does my noble friend agree with the Jackson report that, if the loser is the claimant, that rule should no longer apply?

My Lords, Sir Rupert has made various recommendations concerning costs, particularly about what is described as qualified one-way cost shifting in cases of this sort. That expression means that a defendant will always pay the costs of a successful claimant but a losing claimant will pay only such of the defendant’s costs as is reasonable for him to pay in the circumstances of the case, including the financial resources of the parties and their conduct in the dispute. We are well aware of Sir Rupert’s recommendation for a shift in those types of costs. I am afraid that, again, we have to look in detail at what he is proposing and its interaction with other important recommendations. We will also have to consider what further consultation may be necessary on that point.

My Lords, can the Minister say how long he anticipates that the initial consideration, which I fully accept is required, will take? Of course, how long it takes depends on what arrangements are being made to consider the extensive and generally welcome recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson. I hope that sufficient resources will be allocated to this. I disclose my interest as the author of a report that bore the title Access to Justice. I recall that considerable resources were required before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, whom I see in his place, was prepared to give final clearance to my recommendations.

My Lords, if I may say so, the two people who have been most involved in improving our civil justice system over the past 10 or 15 years are both in the Chamber—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who has just spoken, and my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. Between them, they have succeeded in making our civil justice system infinitely better than it was. However, it is 10 years since the Access to Justice Act was passed and it is only right that we should look to see whether improvements can be made. Sir Rupert has found that there are some that can be made.

As for timing, I have to be careful because some of Sir Rupert’s suggestions require a great deal of analysis. One problem is that he saw his report as a package—and so may want all of it implemented or none of it implemented—but some parts of it could perhaps be implemented earlier. We have to decide between those two difficult choices.

My Lords, may I for once offer my congratulations to the Ministry of Justice on offering full consideration of this report, which came out only two weeks ago and needs a great deal of consultation? May I recommend that the Minister passes on such suggestions to his colleagues in the Department of Health, who might have done the same with their Personal Care at Home Bill?

For a moment I thought the noble Lord was making a serious point about the Jackson report, but I am afraid I was disappointed by the end.

My Lords—

My Lords, alas we have now reached 30 minutes.