Society calls for pause in legal aid bill after Djanogly row

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, has called for a pause in the passage of the legal aid bill following the rumpus over justice minister Jonathan Djanogly's family link to claims management companies.

The justice minister's responsibility for regulating claims management companies has been handed to Ken Clarke after it emerged that Djanogly's brother-in-law owned two claims management firms (see solicitorsjournal.com, 4 October 2011).

Djanogly's children were reported as having shares in both businesses, shares which he was accused of failing to disclose and which have now been sold.

Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter had previously complained to the cabinet secretary about his opposite number's interest in insurance companies.

A spokeswoman for the MoJ said: 'The cabinet secretary has concluded that Jonathan Djanogly took the appropriate steps to prevent any conflict between his financial interests and his ministerial duties.

'There is no evidence that he acted in any way other than in the public interest. Mr Djanogly retains ministerial responsibility for civil justice policy.

'He has requested that the Claims Management Regulation Unit be overseen by a different justice minister, to avoid any possible distraction from this important issue. The Ministry of Justice has agreed to this change.'

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said it was important that 'political noise' over Djanogly's potential conflicts of interest did not distract attention from the task of improving the bill.

'The decision for the cabinet secretary to insulate the minister from regulation of the claims management sector appeared to be a straightforward one,' Hudson said.

'The justice secretary on the other hand has a bigger decision to make. Does he press on regardless with this substantially flawed legislation or does he take the opportunity for a pause to examine the evidence which indicates that, unless substantially amended, it will fail to deliver the hoped-for savings and may wreak havoc on access to justice for thousands each year.'