I support this amendment. The practice that it outlaws seems to be absolutely disgraceful, with an insurance company being paid by its own side—by the defendant—and then approaching the plaintiff to try to do a cheap deal with him for the benefit of the defendant. It seems to me that the conflict of interest is so gross that it ought not to be permitted at all. I am a little surprised by the words in the amendment, which mention knowing that the plaintiff is represented, because I am not quite sure how the amendment would cover a situation where the plaintiff had no representation. When thinking about how one would refine the language, I think one might consider taking out that qualification, because, with a general ban on this practice, your Lordships would simply agree with the amendment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Neill of Bladen
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2012.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c1600-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:04:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_806464
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_806464
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_806464