Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter (pictured) called on personal injury lawyers to get their clients involved in the fight to amend the government’s proposals on civil litigation costs.

Solicitors have until 30 June to respond, and the Labour MP for Hammersmith stressed how difficult it is to influence ministers who appear to have made up their minds.

‘In almost every area of public services there is transformational change going on,’ stressed Slaughter, a former barrister specialising in personal injury cases.

‘The only way you will be heard is by making a connection with some of the millions of people who have had meritorious claims and have received necessary compensation.’

APIL’s executive is considering asking its 5,000 members to write separately to clients who have received damages cheques.

The object would be to highlight the extent to which the client’s compensation would have been reduced under the proposed new regime.

The client would then be asked to contact their own MP objecting to the proposals.

APIL president David Bott told the conference separately: ‘We may have lost the battle, but the war is not over. Does the Ministry of Justice realise it will have to compromise on the fine detail? We’ll have to see.’

Slaughter rubbished insurers’ claims that motorists are paying an extra 10% on their car insurance as a result of high legal costs in settling personal injury claims, and can therefore look forward to cheaper insurance.

‘This was at odds with leading insurer Aviva’s claims shortly after Jackson’s final report,’ said Slaughter.

Dominic Clayden, director of technical claims at Aviva, said the insurer computer-modelled Jackson’s final report and found that civil litigation costs under the proposed system would increase, rather than fall as intended.

He said the extra costs would have to be passed on to all policyholders in the form of higher premiums.

‘And premiums have risen.

'This, we are to believe, has nothing to do with the substantial reduction in investment returns for insurers and has everything to do with claimants and their lawyers.

‘If the government’s priority was purely to cut costs in the civil justice system, it could have considered alternatives, short of ditching a system that is less than 15 years old.’

The RTA portal is not considered in the Jackson report, Slaughter stressed; and ministers could also have reduced the level of success fees.

He added: ‘So why are they really doing this? Well, they think it’s popular.

'When economic forecasts are bad and repeatedly downgraded; when cabinet ministers are criticising the prime minister over immigration policy; and the lord chancellor himself is under attack for being soft on crime – then you need a convenient villain. Lawyers are always popular for that role.’