Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It takes real courage to bring and keep this important, and uncomfortable in many ways, issue in the open. I speak as a member of the English Bar, a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and a founder member, of many years, of the international foundation for arbitration and dispute resolution, so I understand the issues. I will not repeat the legal and technical arguments. That would be otiose, given the many excellent speeches by your Lordships already in support of the Bill today.

I want to reference two examples of practical experience. Back in 1997, I fought for the parliamentary seat of Slough. I well recall going into brilliant grammar schools during the day to talk to the girls and boys. But in the evening, when I went to their homes, I was not even allowed to look at those same girls, let alone talk to them. They would go home with their brothers and change into their different dress. Their brothers would be allowed to mix with and meet people, such as myself, but the girls were sent straight into the kitchen, no one was allowed to speak to them and they were not even allowed to serve me food. I was treated as an honorary man. When I raised the issue of rights for women, I was thrown out of those houses. Indeed, I remember visiting a mosque one day—this is back in 1997—and turning to my husband to say, “We are storing up serious trouble in this country, given that so many young British citizens are not allowed to behave as we do and mix as we do”. Secondly, I will always remember one young Muslim who I knew quite well and who was born in this country. He came up to me one day and said, “The trouble with you British people, we do not respect you; you are weak because you do not stand up for what you believe”.

I come to my central question to the Minister, to which I hope to receive a definitive reply. Will he agree with me that our jury system is no longer sustainable, given that a growing number of people in this country—British citizens, with all the amazing rights that citizenship bestows upon them—do not respect our rule of law and fundamental human rights? Does he agree that when a man has a genuine and heartfelt belief that the rights of women are different from the rights of men, our jury system is broken? We talk about improving the prospect for opportunities for ethnic minority judges. Will the Minister tell us whether we can, and do, allow judges to preside over our system of law when their fundamental beliefs are different?

We must face up to the fact that many Members of Parliament have turned a blind eye to what is happening, and what has been happening in their constituencies for years, for fear of losing votes. Indeed, many of us have been afraid to speak up for fear of being accused of Islamophobia.

What is the solution? That young British man who said that we are weak was quite right. At the core of a safe society, one that our Prime Minister rightly regularly refers to, is a cohesive society. If we are to gain the respect of everyone of all religious beliefs living in this country, we must now to do two things: allow this Bill to pass into law, and seriously rethink and introduce rigour into our rules for citizenship of this country, including rules that spell out and demand equal rights, regardless of gender, under one rule of law—our rule of law—with one system of justice for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin as others have done, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on bringing this matter for debate in the House today. I, of course, share the admiration of all noble Lords for her tenacity. I also share in the admiration for those women who have given the evidence, often at great risk to themselves, which has provided much of the momentum behind what the noble Baroness has done in drawing our attention to the problems that undoubtedly exist in society now. The Government share her support for women’s rights and access to justice and her concerns for the victims of domestic violence. We are fully committed to protecting the rights of all our citizens.

The noble Baroness’s Bill is driven by a concern that sharia law principles, as applied in the decisions by sharia councils in the United Kingdom, are being used as an alternative to the legal process, resulting in the unfair treatment of women, the condoning of domestic violence and other abuses, and the undermining of equal rights and protection under the law. The measures in the Bill would, however, apply to a range of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution services, including those provided by arbitration tribunals, religious councils and boards and independent family mediation services, many of which are regulated by the independent Family Mediation Standards Board. Although these bodies and services are not identical, the overriding principle is that they must operate within the rule of law in the United Kingdom, a point made by a number of noble Lords throughout the debate and particularly by my noble friend Lord Kalms.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe asked about the future of the jury system and the personal beliefs of judges who might be appointed. She and the House will be well aware that judges take an oath to apply the law, as do jurors when deciding a particular case. There is a long and worthwhile tradition of jury trial in this country and I would not seek to say at the Dispatch Box that that should be diminished.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I would say wholeheartedly that our jury system should not be diminished. My concern is that a growing number of people who sit on our juries do not share our beliefs in one rule of law and system of justice and equality of rights for women. They therefore may have a different view as to the outcome of cases that they preside over or sit upon.

[Lord Faulks]

In this country, at the moment at least, we do not have jury panels questioned by lawyers to find out what their views and prejudices are. I would be reluctant to embark on that exercise. However, I understand my noble friend’s concerns. They are matters on which opinions can reasonably differ.

There is one Muslim arbitration council, established in 2007, which operates in five English towns and cities and which applies a form of sharia law. We do not know exactly how many sharia councils or similar bodies are in operation or have the full picture of their activities and outcomes. I would like to assure the noble Baroness that the Government take the concerns raised about some of these councils very seriously and are committed to understanding more about the problems identified.

That is why, as part of the Counter-Extremism Strategy announced earlier this week, the Home Secretary has said that she intends to commission a full, independent investigation into the application of sharia law in England and Wales. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for reading out paragraphs 17 and 18 of that document, which show conclusively that the Government have taken on board many of the factors which have been featuring in this debate and that they intend to commission an independent report. Of course, the announcement was made only this week. I am acutely conscious of the tendencies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, along with all the Chilcot-ian observations made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra about the necessity to consider widely and not simply to provide a preliminary view of these matters. On the question of legislation, I do not want to prejudge anything the inquiry may find, although certainly legislation may be an option. But that is a matter which will be considered in due course. The investigation will enhance our understanding of any ongoing misuse of sharia law and the extent of the problem where it exists.

The Government are also facilitating a range of initiatives and working with others to promote integration in our society and the equality of all women. However, the Government do have reservations as to whether the measures in this Bill are the best way forward in tackling the undoubted problems identified. But first let me make it clear that, regardless of religious belief, every citizen is equal before the law. Decisions taken as part of an alternative dispute resolution are not binding in law, save in limited circumstances in civil matters which are carried out under the Arbitration Act 1996, and which are subject to the safeguards of the Act and recourse to the courts. In addition, criminal matters and certain types of family disputes, such as those over the custody or welfare of children, cannot be arbitrated and can be decided only by the courts. Many couples choose to resolve their difficulties between themselves, sometimes with the assistance of lawyers, mediators and other third parties. People may wish to apply their religious principles to the resolution of disputes, and it is right that they have that choice. The Government are keen to promote the continued use of non-court dispute resolution services to resolve family disputes.

While we agree entirely with the noble Baroness that the necessary standards and safeguards must be in place, at the moment we do not agree that the law needs changing to facilitate this, because relevant and specific protections are already in place in common law and in existing legislation.

Inquiries Act 2005 (Select Committee Report)

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on a wonderful valedictory speech. All I can say is: some gatecrasher! He will be sorely missed.

As a member of the committee I begin by saying that we had an excellent chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and a wonderful clerk to the committee, Michael Collon, together with his team and special adviser. It is a good report and we have been right to express concerns, given the Government’s response to it. That said, the Government have accepted some of our recommendations, although I do not propose to spend any time on those today.

While our primary focus has been to concentrate on the Inquiries Act 2005, our terms of reference went considerably wider and required us to consider more generally,

“the law and practice relating to inquiries into matters of public concern, in particular the Inquiries Act 2005”.

We therefore used the Act as a basis for a broader and more topical inquiry. I believe that this approach allowed us to benefit in our thinking and assisted us with regard to taking evidence from a broad spectrum of individuals with different experiences concerning inquiries over many years. Indeed, as noble Lords have already said, the quality of the evidence given by those who attended our committee was exceptional.

I can attest to the committee arguing and debating at considerable length, ably chaired, as I have said, by my noble friend Lord Shutt, before making our recommendations. I shall follow other noble Lords in focusing on two areas: the task of setting up inquiries—as it turned out, we learnt, from scratch—and warning letters. I may have something to say on progress on that issue.

We were very clear that for an inquiry to proceed expeditiously, expediently and effectively, focusing on the terms of reference and ensuring the best questions were asked to elicit the truth—paramount for having an inquiry in the first place—from the right witnesses in a timely manner, it would be necessary to have, and to some degree we assumed that there would be, experience to draw from, and expertise and officials, when setting up an inquiry. Unfortunately, we quickly learnt that inquiries do not in large part follow an established system. There is no memory bank. The new chairman and team must essentially start from first base, without the benefit of the experience of others who have been through the process before, beyond, as our committee discovered, a dusty draft guidance held by the Cabinet Office and some notes written by a chairman following just one inquiry, offering some advice to future inquiry administrations. That is a shocking revelation, in my view and that of the committee, that obviously contributes to a waste of time and of public money.

Witnesses giving evidence to our committee spoke of the difficulties in commencing an inquiry without experience, reference to proper financial oversight and ongoing assessments of whether the terms of reference were being adhered to, or whether those terms of reference might in practice be proving too broad and thereby ineffectual. In response to numerous witnesses expressing real concern about a lack of sensible experience to draw from when setting up an inquiry, which affects the due process and possibly the outcome, we made a recommendation to set up a small dedicated unit—a central inquiries unit—to be responsible for all the practical details of the inquiry, whether statutory or non-statutory, including assistance with premises, infrastructure, IT, procurement and staffing. Indeed, I personally would extend that role to continuing objective oversight of whether the inquiry is on track to serve its purpose.

It is important to keep in mind in considering our recommendations the extraordinary timescales involved and the sometimes frankly incredible sums of money that are spent in conducting these inquiries. As I kept thinking through our deliberations, in almost all cases these inquiries cost many people’s lifetime contribution to the tax system—whether any of this is proportionate to the purpose. I have to say I think the Government’s response to this recommendation for a small, bespoke unit does not appear properly to consider the enormity of the task.

We have heard from other noble Lords the committee’s concern regarding warning letters and of the meeting held with Simon Hughes MP. The Minister asked me to write to him with a very personal experience. Here I declare that I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry; indeed, I was the subject of a warning letter. The Minister asked me to write to him following the meeting about my experience and why it had led me to believe strongly that an amendment to Rule 13 should be seriously considered to clarify intent and thereby remove any inference that warning letters are a mandatory part of the process. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, we do not want rigid rules.

I will not delay the House by reading out the whole contents of my letter, but in effect I made reference to my personal experience but also made clear, I thought, what we were asking for. I will read a short extract from that first letter:

“In the course of obtaining evidence during our consideration of the Inquiries Act, several witnesses, including Sir Robert Francis, Sir Brian Leveson and Sir Robert Jay, all explained that they thought there was a mandatory requirement for an Inquiry Chairman to send out Warning Letters, however unnecessary, expensive and time-consuming this might be. This led our Committee to unanimously agree that the drafting of Rule 13 might not be defective, as the Government’s response said, however, the content was”.

I waited some time for a reply, which, I have to say, I found most unsatisfactory. Indeed, I went as far as responding to the right honourable Simon Hughes:

“I was disappointed by your response to my letter dated 9th November 2014 and frankly do not believe that you wrote it!”.

Why should I be surprised? What I went on to do was explain again why the committee felt that it was important to address this point, so I explained:

“Perhaps I need to spell it out in more detail: if you read beyond paragraph (1) of Rule 13 which begins: ‘The Chairman may send a warning letter to any person’ you would then find in paragraph (3): ‘The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless … the Chairman has sent that person a Warning Letter and … the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the warning letter.’

So, in the event a Chairman, when drafting his Report, might wish to make any reference to a witness which could be construed as a criticism, there is no discretion; the Chairman must first send a warning letter. A Chairman may, when drafting his Report, develop his thinking and be inclined to mention many individuals in which case, he may be compromised in so doing, if he hasn’t first issued a warning letter in case a ‘mention’ of a witness is construed as a criticism by someone. How can that make sense?”.

So, we suggested,

“surely a simple amendment to clarify intention to make it clear that warning letters should be issued to witnesses at the discretion of the Chairman of the Inquiry would be simple to do and the effect would be to make an enormous difference in terms of cost and upset”—

which is incredibly important—

“to all concerned. Would that not be progress?”.

I sent that letter on 9 December. Until 11.22 am precisely, I had not received a reply, which I have now received from the right honourable Simon Hughes MP. It was given to me just as the debate began by my noble friend. I should add that I sent a chaser email at the beginning of this week, which perhaps helped. I think it would be helpful to the House if I were to read out the letter, dated today’s date:

“Dear Lady Buscombe,

Thank you for your further email of 9 December in response to mine of 26 November following my suggestion that you provide me with details of your experience in relation to Inquiry warning letters. I am sorry that you were disappointed with my response and apologise for the delay in responding.

I recognise that Rule 13, as currently drafted, has led inquiry chairs to treat the issue of warning letters as an obligation and I agree with your observations on how that leads to increased inquiry costs and the potential to cause concern for some witnesses. However, I believe that Rule 13 strikes the right balance, affording individuals every opportunity to take legal advice and, if they consider it necessary, to respond to criticism. A departure from the current approach, giving more discretion to inquiry chairs, could either lead to a loss of that opportunity with a corresponding impact on the involvement of witnesses, or as indicated in the Government’s response result in no change to the practice of sending Salmon letters almost universally adopted by inquiry chairs.

Although I do not propose to take this issue further, I look forward to the implementation of a number of the Committee’s recommendations by HMG when parliamentary time allows”.

Of course, we do not have very long.

So we have another reply—a response that I am still not convinced answers the question. We are not saying that there should be no rule; we are saying that the rule should be discretionary. There is a suggestion in the letter that,

“giving more discretion to inquiry chairs, could … lead to a loss of that opportunity”.

I think that noble Lords who have already spoken might argue that that is not necessarily the case, and, indeed, that it would be beneficial for there to be an amendment to ensure that there is discretion. I urge my noble friend the Minister—given the Government’s belief that Rule 13, in principle, strikes the right balance—to reconsider the question of making it explicit in the rule that this should be discretionary and that in no way should this compromise the position of the witnesses concerned.

We have learnt that the extraordinary, unexplained delay in publishing the Chilcot report relates to the ongoing receipt of information by the inquiry panel following the issuance of warning letters. If that is true, surely it is a prime example of a lack of clarity in the rules pursuant to the Inquiries Act, leading—I have no doubt—to a considerable increase in costs, time wasted and frustration on the part of all concerned and, worse still, to a loss of public trust in the process. Will anyone believe the report when it is published? That leads to my final point.

In this excellent report there are several references to public trust in inquiries. On reflection, I must declare that at the outset of our committee’s inquiry, I did not believe that the public trust or value inquiries very much at all, and nothing has happened since to change that belief. That is not to say that I do not believe in the value of public inquiries, but I am concerned about public trust. Any value is probably upfront; one witness said that the value is all upfront when an inquiry is a catharsis that something is being done. Other witnesses expressed the view that expectations are raised and, sadly, all too often wane when outcomes—we now have the latest example of that with the Al-Sweady inquiry—bring the whole process into very expensive disrepute. It is to the Government’s credit that the lawyers involved will be subject to legal action. This kind of scenario, relating directly to the Al-Sweady inquiry, was not one considered during our deliberations.

This is a very good and worthwhile report. I urge my noble friend the Minister that the recommendations which have been accepted by the Government in their response should remain in the pending tray, along with the question of Rule 13, to be actioned—we hope—by the next Government.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, of course it is wrong for a young person to carry a knife. Of course we want to remove and reduce the number of young people in school with knives. Of course we want to sympathise with the victims. I am a mere social worker, so I have had to work at both ends of this spectrum. However, what we are talking about is what the real deterrent would be, not whether we are aiming to reduce the use and holding of knives.

I agree with noble Lords who have spoken about young people’s development; we think of that very little these days in our policy. Based on my experience, the clause is very unlikely to deter them from carrying knives. What happens is that young people find themselves in a gang at the age of 14. The rest of the gang are aged 16 to 18. The clever thing is to carry a knife. It may be that the 16 to 18 year-olds are not carrying the knives, but the young person is encouraged to take the risk. On estates they are terrified that their parents—usually their single mum—are going to be harmed, so they carry a knife. Of course it is wrong, but the deterrents will not work if these young people are going to be put away.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children has just been looking at the relationship between children and young people and the police. A number of the young witnesses were pretty tough and had been in extraordinary trouble. It became clear that what made a difference was those young people having a police mentor. As the result of the police going into their schools and talking to them, they joined the police cadets or some other organisation, and that was far more likely to deter them from the path of any sort of criminality, particularly violence. If young people begin to understand, through relationships, what the outcome of their actions will be, they will be much more likely to change. Therefore, I oppose the clause and support the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation because I have found this debate really rather depressing. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am not speaking as someone who might have experience as a social worker or as a member of the judiciary. I am a lawyer but I am also a mother and perhaps, through that experience, in addition to my experience as a lawyer and as someone who has spent many years in your Lordships’ House, I might understand the thinking of those who carry knives. We should remind ourselves that we are talking about:

“Possessing an offensive weapon or bladed article in public or on school premises: sentencing for second offences for those aged 16 or over”.

I shall be brief because most of what I want to say has been said very eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my noble friend Lady Berridge.

My support for this clause focuses on two points. First, it is true that the level of knife crime is falling and that has to be a good thing but, through our ability as a legislature, let us give all the support we can to those who work to support that trend to do the right thing—that is, the police, teachers, governors, the Government, the Ending Gang and Youth Violence programme led by the Home Office, and those very young people themselves. Let us not underestimate the ability, the intelligence and, in some ways, the smartness of those who unfortunately are gang members. Let us give them every piece of ammunition to stop carrying knives in public places and in the schoolyard. Let us think about their friends who are terrified every time they go into the playground because they do not know who, among their friends, is carrying a knife.

My second point concerns deterrence, and it has pleased me to some extent that we have at least heard that word. I was beginning to think that there was no longer any such thing in people’s minds and that people were saying, “Well, it won’t work, so let’s not bother”. We have been allowing these gangs to grow in number in all parts of this country. Let us do all we can to see whether just one additional strengthening of the law will lead to some small deterrent somewhere in the minds of these young people, giving them the strength to say, “You know what, it’s not worth it. Even though it might look cool, it ain’t cool, because I don’t want to go to prison”. Call me naive but I can tell your Lordships that, in a sense, bringing up children is as good an experience as sitting in a court of law and receiving the problem after the event. I am saying that we have the ability in your Lordships’ House to focus on prevention, not the after-effects. So please can we say to all those children out there, “Be strong and we will show you that it’s just not cool to carry knives”?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I think the noble Lord protests too much. I was explaining to him the motivations of the previous Government for bringing in the Proceeds of Crime Act.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I was the shadow Minister on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I have rather a good memory, and I can say that the Minister is absolutely accurate in his comments about why the Government chose not to use the Proceeds of Crime Act as an opportunity for dealing with this issue.

[Lord Bach]

It is very good to have the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, joining the debate, but if that was the best defence that the previous Government could put up for that, it was really not satisfactory. I remind the Minister that that argument has been described as,

“fallacious, and easily remedied by the simple implementation of a cap on defence fees, careful supervision by the court and/or an assessment by the court taxing officers, who are familiar with assessing what constitutes ‘reasonable’ costs in such cases”.

If that was the argument put forward by my Government at that time, I say here and now that it was a fallacious argument and not one that the present Government should fall into the trap of adopting.

Defamation Bill [HL]

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Friday 9th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, on their excellent maiden speeches. I must declare an interest as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. In that capacity, I welcome this Bill as an important and, frankly, overdue step towards reform of our libel laws. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on bringing it forward.

I agree with much of what has been said in this debate, but I disagree with some of it. In my contribution, I shall focus almost entirely on one small but important aspect of the Bill: the proposal to introduce in Clause 1(4)(g) a defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest which would include consideration of the extent to which the defendant has complied with any relevant code of conduct, such as the Editors' Code of Practice.

My purpose is therefore both to support the principle of applying adherence to a code of conduct as a valid defence and further to explain to your Lordships why the PCC, as an independent regulator that enforces the Editors' Code of Practice for the newspaper and magazine industry, is well placed to work in synergy with the law. Rulings of the PCC have already been recognised by the courts, and it is right that the law should recognise the validity of the PCC system.

The Explanatory Notes attached to the Bill emphasise the tortuous process for delivering reform and the length of time that libel law reform has taken and, indeed, is taking. This contrasts sharply with the flexibility of the self-regulatory system. The PCC system allows for continuous evolution, flexibility and adaptability. We react speedily to fact and circumstance. In addition, we can adapt to cultural change, influencing and reflecting in our decisions what is, and what is not, acceptable in our society.

Lawyers are often too rule-bound and the law is too narrow when justice requires the exercise of discretion. The PCC exercises discretion in a bespoke way. Indeed, it complements a key objective of the Bill in that it strives to strike a fair balance between private reputation and freedom of expression. Self-regulation performs a critical role in filling the gap left by the law and, in the case of the PCC, fulfils an important objective of the Bill, which is to ensure the speedy resolution of disputes. Indeed, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s preference for alternate dispute resolution—I must declare an interest as a founder member of the Foundation for International and Commercial Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Much of our work is focused on mediation. The PCC is easily accessible and free to complainants to use. There is the rub for lawyers. They often prefer to say that the PCC is not a proper place for redress because as soon as complainants come to us, our services are free and the lawyer is not paid.

The PCC has authority. We demand prominence of apologies and levels of standards. We also work to prevent, indeed pre-empt, harm and to encourage editors to think before possibly breaching the code. We do this through pre-publication advice, by sending desist notices and by engaging with editors where a potential claimant fears something will be printed that they believe would breach the code. For example, today, the PCC director is in Cumbria talking to those affected by the recent shootings and the subsequent press coverage. We were first in touch with the Cumbrian police offering our services to victims and their families even before the tragic events were over and the gunman was still alive. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, used the word “equity”. That is what we are focused on.

PCC commissioners debate fully and with rigour the often difficult balance—as noble Lords have said today, it is a difficult balance—between freedom of expression and the rights of individuals. Commissioners often change their minds as a result of open debate. The system demands a degree of trust and integrity from all those who buy into it. It works because editors are held ultimately responsible.

I very much welcome the recognition in this Bill of the high professional standards that adherence to the Editors’ Code of Practice brings. By tying self-regulation into legal standards you enhance both. It is right that courts should recognise the validity of the PCC system. This Bill will benefit self-regulation and the law. We are painfully aware of how slow the law as prescribed by statute is to recognise the speed with which technology changes our behaviour and creates potential for harm. It is incredible to think that the Communications Act 2003 does not even mention the internet. In 2010, online communications is where much of the harm in this area of the law is done.

Statutory recognition of self regulation should encourage online media to sign up to the benefits of abiding by a self-regulatory system. For example, last year, the PCC’s remit was extended to those news organisations that publish only on the internet. In future it must be likely that publishers will see the value of something akin to a kitemark to show the standards to which they adhere by participating in the self-regulatory system.

In terms of compliance, the PCC system has to be the preferred route, given that we can, and we do, move so much faster than the courts. We regularly take complaints about online material and have the offending articles removed in a matter of minutes. This places a check on continued dissemination. With regard to multiple publications, the PCC’s experience will assist the law because already PCC rulings do not affect only newspaper articles but also internet versions, archives and even Google search results. It is the case that many of the circumstances prescribed for responsible publication are already considered by the editors’ code, such as checking sources and notifying an individual ahead of publication. The PCC also has a good track record in identifying differences between fact, conjecture and opinion, and establishing case law.

In making the positive case for applying compliance with the editors’ code a defence under Clause 1, it is important that I add that the PCC is not complacent and that it recognises a continuing challenge to reassure public confidence and trust in the media that they consume. Just this week an independent governance review of the PCC has been published. This gives us the impetus further to refine and renew the structures and processes of the PCC and ensure that we perform as effectively as possible.

In conclusion, there is much to commend in this Bill. In concurring with other noble Lords, I welcome this important beginning of a process and, yes, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, it must be a constructive process to reform the law of defamation.

Children: Criminal Responsibility

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

It is above my pay grade. It is no use the noble Lord saying, “Oh, come on”; he knows darn well that I cannot make that kind of commitment. However, I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will note such a recommendation from such a learned QC.

[Baroness Buscombe]

In developing his thinking, will the Minister look at the tremendous amount of work done by the Conservative Party in opposition in 2001-02, when we looked in great detail at how we prevent young people getting on to the conveyor belt to crime? I think that that would help him. Will the Minister agree to do that?

[Lord McNally]

One of advantages of the coalition is that I am now able to look at the wide body of research that comes from all the parties. I do not think that it is a party political issue; nor is there a simple, ideological solution. However, as a complete newcomer to this issue, I think that some solutions have been found. As I have said previously, we fully intend to follow the direction of travel of the previous Administration, while of course taking into account the experience of our sister coalition party as well.