Significant recommendations to shake-up the costs of taking cases through the civil courts could backfire on the victims of industrial injuries, the government was told today.
Liberal Democrat MP Paul Rowen asked what assessment had been made on the recommendations of the recent review by Lord Justice Jackson on civil litigation costs.
He said the report suggesting a "significant cost saving" would mean that ordinary people would "lose out".
But justice secretary Jack Straw said the proposed reforms had been designed to improve "practical access to justice".
Lord Justice Jackson was asked to make recommendations which would promote access to justice "at proportionate cost".
The review, published last month found that lawyers in 'no win, no fee' civil cases should no longer have a "success fee" paid by the defendants, but should get a share of damages.
During Commons question time, Rowen said that should the proposals be implemented, it will be "ordinary men and women who will lose out".
He added such moves would breach previous commitments that the costs of litigation should lay in the first place with those who have actually caused the damage.
In response, the justice secretary said the proposals had been designed to reduce the overall costs of civil litigation as they have become too high.
He added: "The fact they are too high is itself a bar on proper access to justice."
Labour MP Rob Marris also asked about the review of civil litigation costs, questioning whether legal aid or 'no win, no fee' arrangements would be increased.
In other exchanges, shadow justice minister Eleanor Laing called on ministers to amend the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill "to make sure that election night is not lost and democracy is preserved".
She said the government had a "great opportunity" to preserve the constitutional convention under which the government is determined without delay after a general election.
Justice minister Michael Wills said he would respond to the amendment during debate on the Bill later today.
