麻豆约拍

In a new series of thought-provoking debates, Claire Bolderson looks at something another country does well, or differently, and asks whether it could work here.
The trend towards a US-style litigation culture in the UK in recent years has been a growing cause for concern. The costs - both financial and social - of legal claims against public services such as heath and education is escalating year-on-year. But the cases that make it to court are only the tip of the iceberg, with countless others taking up precious resources, time and bureaucracy. Is there an alternative to this name, blame and claim culture?

Is demanding compensation for accidents now seen as a the only way of holding public services to account? What does the threat of litigation do to transparency and accountability? Is the fear of litigation damaging to the professionalism of doctors, nurses and teachers and the delivery of services? Do we need to take a long, hard look at this trend and where it is likely to lead us?

In New Zealand, patients get compensation for all personal injuries and accidents through a no-fault government-funded compensation system. In turn, they relinquish the right to sue for damages arising from personal injury, except in rare cases of misconduct.

Advocates of New Zealand's no-fault system claim that it is cheaper to run and provides more-timely compensation to a greater number of patients, as well as a less stressful process for resolving disputes. Straightforward claims are processed in weeks, with a fixed award structure ensuring that similar injuries receive similar compensation. The system is funded through general taxation and employer levies and is mandatory and universal.

Would a similar system work in the UK? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

Producers: Ruth Evans and Jennie Walmsley
A Ruth Evans production for 麻豆约拍 Radio 4.