Coroners: Terminally Ill Patients

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the coroners’ service is under local jurisdiction and the protocol established in Manchester is something that has been decided between the coroner’s office and the police in Manchester. It does give us concern and the department intends to issue guidance under its new powers which we hope will smooth out some of the variants in how coroners apply their powers. This is one of those that will be looked at.

[Lord Bach]

The Minister will know that the director of the Royal British Legion, no less, has said that the Government’s decision to scrap the new post of chief coroner is a deep betrayal of bereaved service families. Does he agree that during the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill all sides of this House were as one in believing that not only was the reform of the coronial system an urgent necessity but also that the establishment of a chief coroner, along side a chief medical officer, with powers to set national standards, to lead, and to hear the new system of appeals, was at the heart of the reforms? Why have the Government taken the absurd and counterproductive step which, in the words of the co-director of INQUEST, renders the new model “completely hollow” before it has even started, and a step that has, moreover, managed so deeply to upset bereaved service families and the Royal British Legion?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am sorry that the Royal British Legion has made that judgment. The decision not to go ahead with the chief coroner was made, as the noble Lord knows, mainly on financial grounds. The setting up of the post would have been expensive. The alternative that was put forward in my Written Statement is that we are going to take much of what was in the legislation in-house in the Ministry of Justice and do the tasks ourselves. I am well aware that in so doing we set ourselves a pretty important task because, as the noble Lord rightly said, when the Coroners and Justice Bill was going through this House all sides wanted to see an improvement in consistency in the coroners’ service. That is what we intend to do in-house and we will be judged on our performance.

Prisons: Population

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Youth Justice Board. As the noble Baroness said, during its time it has overseen a very welcome drop in youth offending. It is not disappearing: its work will be reabsorbed into a unit within the Ministry of Justice.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, of course it is common sense that if reoffending rates fall, fewer people will go to prison. However, how are the Government planning to get reoffending down when the comprehensive spending review plans to cut 10,000 jobs from the Prison Service and the National Probation Service? Does the Minister understand—I am sure that he does—that it is utterly and completely unrealistic to argue for cutting the number of prison inmates by 3,000 while at the same time decimating the National Probation Service?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, the job figures cover a five-year period, and in some cases the reductions will be absorbed by natural wastage. Some of the excessive language that has just been used ignores the fact that the Administration will genuinely look at alternatives to prison. What has struck me in the very short time that I have been in this job has been seeing examples—often very small examples—of interventions with prisoners that have an extraordinary impact on reoffending. There was an example on “Today” last week of a charity finding accommodation for prisoners before they were released. Among the prisoners with whom it was working there was a 20 per cent reoffending rate rather than the 80 per cent in other categories. I believe that there are alternatives and I hope that the Green Paper will give scope for an intelligent and non-hysterical debate about these factors.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Lords Chamber

The introduction of these new disciplines and the failure to make progress on the bigger reforms threaten to discourage further individual, voluntary involvement in the democratic process, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said. Our political parties are wholly dependent on the commitment, enthusiasm and self-esteem of volunteers. Truly active involvement in the public life of our country, through the political parties, is an essential element in the so-called big society. The order is, of course, useful but it is a tiny answer to a much bigger problem.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I shall be fairly brief but I cannot resist commenting that it is slightly ironic that we should be debating this matter on the afternoon when staff in the Ministry of Justice—whether front-line staff or those who work in the main office—are being decimated by a Statement made in another place. The staff who produced this order and the Bill, which became the Act, are the ones who will have to suffer. It seems to me ironic that we should discuss such a good order on the very day when they are to be decimated as a result of government policy.

I thank the Minister for outlining so clearly and in such detail the statutory instrument that we are being asked to approve. We support the order, which is hardly surprising as it flows from two Acts of Parliament introduced by the previous Government. As we have heard, the civil sanctions were introduced by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, and these regulations flow from the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. As it happens, I played a small part in taking both those Bills through this House, so I am interested in the order which flows from those Acts.

The use of civil sanctions was not approved without controversy in this House when it considered the Bill. Their use, as opposed to criminal proceedings, is a flexible, sensible and proportionate step for many of the offences—for that is what they are—committed under the 2000 and 2009 Acts. As has already been said, criminal proceedings are appropriate and necessary in cases where a person has acted in a knowing or reckless way, but I hope that those cases are rare.

I say this with perhaps more feeling than some. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this and, no doubt, that of the noble Lord, Lord Martin. I was a constituency Labour Party treasurer for many years and now, for my sins, I am a chairman of a constituency Labour Party.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Bach]

I am very grateful to the House for that acknowledgement. Both as treasurer and chairman I could be affected by the legislation that is now on the statute book.

I congratulate the Electoral Commission on the note it sent to noble Lords on this order, but I invite it to use its considerable powers—and they are considerable, as has been pointed out in the debate—with care, tolerance and humanity, bearing in mind the voluntary nature of so much political activity in this country. We support the order.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I shall reply briefly to this debate. I am sure that we are all impressed by the climb of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, from treasurer to party chairman. Disraeli called that climbing the greasy pole.

I shall also respond briefly to the noble Lord’s point about the Ministry of Justice. Twelve years ago, I served on an inquiry, initiated by this House and chaired by the late Lord Slynn, into whether the ethos of public service was still alive and well in our Civil Service after the changes that had taken place in the 1980s and 1990s. Our report stated that yes, it really was alive and well—people in our public service were motivated by a sense of public duty and public service. Since returning into government five months ago, my experience has been such that I would not change a word of that report. I have been much moved and impressed by the dedication of the public servants with whom I have worked at all levels. I am well aware that percentages are meaningless for the individuals concerned. For them, the unemployment is 100 per cent. Therefore, we will try to manage the changes that we judge to be inevitable with a duty of care to those people and with as much humanity as we possibly can.

I am very familiar with this topic because more than a decade ago I was on the Benches opposite arguing about the Bill and many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, raised. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and myself, as two former party officials, pointing out that the Bill was couched in terms that made the treasurership of a political party sound like one of those golden prizes in politics, whereas the hard truth is that it is usually given to someone who has inadvertently left the room at the wrong time. It was argued at the time that the commission would have all kinds of talents except perhaps the most valuable talent of all—the ability to run elections at the sticky end for the political parties. The most recent appointments to the commission have been an attempt to remedy that, because the nominees have come from the political parties. I hope that that answer meets the point that was raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Martin, and my noble friend Lord Tyler asked whether the heavy hand of sanctions would come down on inexperience or on genuine mistakes. The Electoral Commission, in putting forward how it wants to approach these matters, said:

“We recognise that many of those responsible for complying with the law on party and election finance are volunteers … The new civil sanctions will allow us to use more constructive approaches to secure compliance in cases where the law has been broken. For example, we could issue a statutory notice designed to improve future compliance, rather than just imposing a less flexible penalty such as a fine.”

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, a lot of work was done on this before the general election, and this order reflects that. The thinking behind it is that the Electoral Commission was faced with using either a tap on the wrist or a criminal prosecution. The order gives it a range of measures. What is in the order, and what is in the remarks that I made when I introduced it, is the point that the Electoral Commission is in no doubt that proportionality will be expected of it. With political experience in the commission, I hope that it will be able to use these powers with due proportionality and that there will be no sledgehammer, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and my noble friend Lord Tyler feared.

My only other point is in response to my noble friend Lord Tyler, who asked about the funding of political parties. This is a firm commitment in the coalition agreement. It was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I am tempted to say that the Government will move directly to the measure as soon as reform of the House of Lords has passed, but that might be seen as not the kind of commitment that the House is looking for. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, noble Lords on all sides of the House know that in the previous Parliament we came very close to getting agreement on party funding. The coalition Government are committed to try again and we hope, as the Opposition are nodding vigorously, that if we initiate a new attempt to get agreement on party funding, we will succeed this time.

[Lord Bach]

I absolutely agree with everything that the noble Lord has said, but if he wants to know the reason why the talks on political funding failed—as Christopher Wren said when asked for what his monument would be—he should look around him. It is the people with whom he is in coalition who have prevented it happening.

[Lord McNally]

I would prefer to leave those matters to the historians. We are looking forward. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is making a report. The report to which my noble friend Lord Tyler referred is on my desk at the moment. I think that we have a really good chance of taking matters forward. As I have said before, all the major parties have at some time or other faced problems, embarrassments and difficulties because of our way of funding political parties. If we really apply ourselves early in this Parliament to the problem, we could and should find a solution.

I commend the order to the House. It will help the party activists. I finish by endorsing the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Bach, who all have campaign medals as party activists. Nothing annoys me more during a general election than knocking on a door only to be told by some proud person that they never vote and that we are all in it for what we can get. We know that our democracy works because of the tens of thousands in every political party who are willing to do those hard, dull jobs such as sticking things through doors and knocking on the doors of perfect strangers to engage them in discussion. They are the people who make our democracy work. I pay tribute to them and hope that this order will make that voluntary work a little easier.

Divorce

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, it is not only this House that should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this subject today, but society in general. This debate is not just interesting, it is significant, because of where it stands in relation to a campaign for reform that now has the push and impetus to make it, in my view, unstoppable. The timing of this debate is crucial in seeing this forward.

I speak with the experience of having been legal aid Minister in the Ministry of Justice until five or six months ago, where obviously this issue, in one particular form, came across my desk many times. I was convinced by the time I left that post that there was need for reform, and considerable reform, of our system of divorce in this country. The latest available figures show that in the United Kingdom, more than 136,000 people were divorced in 2008. That is a declining number in percentage terms, but it always remains an inevitable emotional and financial impact for the individuals and families concerned. Deciding how to divide property and assets and settle the financial arrangements is and always has been one of the big challenges to our system of justice. Few can genuinely say that this system is working and is satisfactory in any real way.

I hope the House will forgive me if I return to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which sets out the principles that the court has to take into account when deciding in each individual case on the division of assets. These include, as many noble Lords will know better than I, whether there is a child; the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has; financial needs, obligations and responsibilities; the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown; the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage; any physical or mental disability; the contribution each party made, including family welfare; the conduct of each party if it is inequitable to disregard it; and the value to each of the parties of any benefit, such as a pension, brought to the marriage which, by reason of dissolution, the party will lose the chance of acquiring.

These principles also help to guide decisions by parties for out-of-court settlements too. However—and it is a big however—the extent to which the principles are useful is affected hugely by the court’s overriding discretion under Section 25. Under this section, the court is required to take into account all surrounding circumstances of the case. Therefore, each case is dealt with on an individual basis according to the facts. Some may say that that is great, but the truth is that it leads to such uncertainty that people end up in court when really they should not.

Let us look at examples from overseas. In many comparable countries, the statutory starting point for dividing matrimonial property on divorce is 50:50. In New Zealand, for example, any departure from the 50:50 rule would apply only where there was, interestingly, an enforceable prenuptial agreement, if it was a marriage of very short duration or there were extraordinary circumstances. The New Zealand system recognises that a person may have separate property that is not subject to the sharing formula unless it merges and becomes matrimonial property such as a family home. In the United States, where each state seems to have its own system, there seems to be a general move towards a simple 50:50 split.

Many couples who get divorced in this country are able to agree on financial arrangements and simply apply to the court for a consent order to be granted. For others, financial arrangement decisions on divorce, as we have heard, are long, expensive and painful. This obviously has a damaging effect on family life in the future when there is a need for parties to stay in long-term contact where children are concerned. Children are often caught, as we have heard, in the middle, with a potential impact on their development and relationships with one or both parties. Allowing the court to have a broad discretion recognises that not all disputes are the same. I will quote, not in the original Russian but from a well known translation, the first lines of Anna Karenina:

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.

The current law has led us to a growing feeling that there is just too much uncertainty for parties who are attempting to create financial settlements on divorce. This takes an enormous emotional toll on parties, as well as being extraordinarily and unnecessarily expensive. The longer it stretches on without being settled, the more stressful it can become. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, whom I praise for the frankness and honesty of her speech, gave good evidence of this. Of course, it then does more damage for the vital future.

We on these Benches are very interested in the Government’s plans for changes in this area of law. Do the Government plan to change the principles that guide the court and the parties in determining whether a financial settlement is fair and reasonable? To what extent would they retain courts’ discretion to take into account the individual—but not exceptional—circumstances of parties? How will they calculate a fair formula for maintenance payments where a party is young, with years of future earning potential; or older, following a joint marital decision for one party to forgo their career to care for the children of the relationship instead?

When we were in government we recognised the complexity of financial settlement on divorce. That why we initiated the fundamental review of the family justice system in January this year. We are delighted that the new Government decided to continue with that review and issued their call for evidence in June 2010. I invite the noble Lord, in responding to this debate, to give us what information he can about any preliminary findings from this review. I know it closed only on 30 September but any information that he can give us would be gratefully received.

An amicable divorce is indeed a rare thing. Often there are harsh words, and even deeds, between parties to a divorce, with negative outcomes. That is why the family review looked at the best methods for avoiding confrontational court hearings and encouraging the use of mediation to deliver fairer and less acrimonious settlements that place the needs and interests of children and the parties at the heart of the system.

We are proud of our system here as far as criminal law is concerned. It says that there should be two parties and they should fight it out in court. For criminal law there is a strong argument that that is a better system than systems elsewhere. However, in the sensitive field of family disputes, is it really to be argued that confrontations in court should be the rule, rather than the exception? Is it not much better to look at alternatives to confrontation in court? One of those alternatives is mediation, which has been around for a long time. However, there is—I have heard lawyers say this themselves—a belief that some lawyers in the industry have from time to time merely paid lip service to the option of mediation. In some ways, one cannot blame them because the incentive is to keep the case going. However, if you do that it is unfair to clients and other lawyers, the vast majority of whom make every effort to ensure that cases are not brought to court unnecessarily. I pay tribute to Resolution, a body with 5,500 members comprising solicitors and others committed to using non-adversarial processes with their clients, including mediation and collaborative law, as we have heard.

The question is whether and how we can enhance the use of these processes to improve the family law system. These are very difficult issues. I pay tribute to all those, whether litigators or advocates, who carry out family work. It is a very hard job, which is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable and, on the whole, they do it with enormous skill and probity, and not always for the greatest reward. We on this side of this House think that change must come. I very much hope and believe that the Government are of the same opinion. Our present system is not an option. It is not working satisfactorily for anybody in the system—parties, lawyers, courts or the state. However, change must be thorough, thought out, discussed and, we hope, agreed by consensus.

Human Rights: Spending Cuts

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I can only repeat what I have said; for all the decisions in all the departments, the departments are asked to look at how protection can best be given to the most vulnerable.

[Lord Bach]

Will the Minister ensure as best he can, given his strong support for the human rights agenda, which is appreciated, that his Government do not arbitrarily remove financial support from the institutions and bodies that protect human rights in this country? Further, would he confirm, as alleged in a recently published booklet, Common Sense: Reflections on the Human Rights Act, that at the post-coalition Liberal Democrat party meeting, a big meeting held in Birmingham on 16 May, he threatened to resign if the Human Rights Act was repealed by this Government?

[Lord McNally]

On the first part of that question, all the groups will have to see what happens in the public expenditure review. On the second part, I did say that if at the end of this Government’s term there was no Human Rights Act, there would be no Tom McNally—but I also suspect that if that were the case, there would be no William Hague either. We are both determined, as the Foreign Secretary said, that there will be no downgrading of human rights under this Government.

Crime: Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Commission

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I share all the descriptions of the report that the noble Lord used. It has come at an extremely opportune moment. I cannot guarantee that every last recommendation will be in it but, as he said, it comes from a very good stable. I think that, in drawing up the Green Paper and carrying the debate forward, it will be reflected in many of the things that we want to say.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that we too welcome the report and we look forward to the Government’s response as soon as is possible. Does the Minister agree, first, that the decline in the number of children and young people in custody by around one-third, as the report mentions, is to be widely welcomed and, secondly, that in some cases, alas, custody even for those so young is necessary? Thirdly, will he assure us that the Government’s policy is, as the report suggests it ought to be, that custody should be a last resort?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I have no hesitation in endorsing those three points, in particular that the whole thrust of government policy—as I think that it was with the previous Administration—is to make custody for young people a last resort.

Prisons

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs. This has been a useful debate but he was right to say that it is much too short. However, it is important to discuss issues when we get the chance, even though there are honestly held different points of view, as there are on this issue.

The right honourable gentleman the Lord Chancellor said that his priorities are,

“to protect the public, punish offenders and provide access to justice”.

Given that speech, it seems to me that those who believe that prison should rarely be used as a form of punishment have become a little prematurely overexcited. To be fair to the Lord Chancellor, he is starting a discussion which has a long way to run, and even longer to go before legislation on sentencing and other measures is discussed in Parliament. Debate is a good thing, of course, but it is important—particularly for those who believe that he is going to satisfy their every wish—to read his whole speech and not just the parts of it that you want to read.

For our part, we think it is important to imprison serious offenders, but we also think that it is important to seek to rehabilitate them, whether inside or outside prison. We believe thoroughly in community sentences but they must be sentences that really mean something and, when breached, eventually invite custody. As the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association said in response to the Lord Chancellor’s speech, and indeed as the Prime Minister’s mother said—if she was rightly quoted by her son—from her experience as a magistrate of long standing, many shorter sentences are imposed on those who constantly breach the chances that they have been given. I am afraid that we cannot escape from that, however much we would like to do so. Indeed, one reason why the number of domestic violence offences has gone down is that domestic violence offenders now sometimes receive short sentences of imprisonment. No one thinks that there is no problem with short sentences—of course there is—but it is perhaps not quite as simple as some have made out, even in this debate.

When in government, we spent a huge amount of money on increasing learning in prison, on prisoner work and on dealing with drugs in prison, with an additional allocation to NHS primary care trusts for the total targeted implementation of the integrated drug treatment system. What will happen now if the PCTs are abolished? Outside prison, large amounts were successfully spent on dealing with youth offending so that, now that fewer young offenders enter the criminal justice system, there is a fall in reoffending and a smaller number of young offenders in custody than there were a few years ago. There is also the Corston report and the money that has been spent in implementing that. However, the spend on probation increased hugely by, in real terms, nearly 70 per cent between 1996-97 and 2007-08. It is sad to think that the budget, which we set of £870 million for the year 2010-11, has already been reduced by £20 million by the new Government. Goodness knows what is to come.

Therefore, although we make no apologies for our policy towards an increase in custody for those who deserve it, we point out the obvious: that non-custodial disposals are expensive, too, if they are to work. The Lord Chancellor was honest when he said that,

“I … cannot promise that we will be investing vast amounts of public money into non-custodial sentences across the country”.

My point is that prison is expensive—of course it is—but so are alternatives that also work.

I end by asking the Minister a couple of questions which I hope he will answer. First, does he agree that, as the figures make clear, there has been a substantial decrease in the level of crime over the past 15 years? My second question, which is linked, is: if the answer to my first question is yes, does he seriously believe that the decrease in the level of crime has nothing whatever to do with the fact that more people are in prison for longer? If that is the Government’s view, then many ordinary people who have been, but are no longer, the victims of crime will be horrified.

Defamation Bill [HL]

Lord Bach Excerpts

Friday 9th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I shall begin what I intend, and what I am sure the House fervently desires, will be a fairly short contribution with a number of congratulations. I congratulate, first, our two maiden speakers today, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who both come to this House with high reputations. After their contributions today, we can all see why. We look forward to hearing much from them in the future. I congratulate also all those who have spoken in this debate, whether lawyers or non-lawyers. The fact that both have been importantly involved in this debate proves perhaps the point, if it needed proving, that the law of defamation affects all of us in society. Above all, congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. While there is clearly a consensus for reform, he has taken matters a step further and produced a serious and compelling legislative proposal in the form of the Bill before us today. For that, he deserves much more merely than the thanks and congratulations of this House; he deserves the congratulations and thanks of the country.

I commiserate with the noble Lord on being so near yet so far from being the Earl of Leicester. What a wonderful thing it would be to be Earl of what to some of us is God’s own city, but, distinguished as he is, he has not quite yet reached that high point.

I hope that it comes as no surprise that we on this side in favour of reform in this area of the law—it was specifically referred to in our recent manifesto. Therefore, it follows that we warmly welcome this Bill and its crucial role, as we see it, as instigator of legislative change—it is not the final word; the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made that absolutely plain. It is quite clear that the impetus for change has been growing and, when in government, we responded. The libel working group convened by my right honourable friend the previous Lord Chancellor produced a report alongside other significant reports and consultations such as Defamation and the Internet, the consultation entitled Controlling costs in defamation proceedings—about which I shall say a little more later—and, earlier this year, the Select Committee report from another place. All those have all strengthened the case for reform.

Some much publicised and shocking cases—the Singh case here comes to mind—have also been instrumental in bringing this campaign to the wider public’s attention. I praise the organisations Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and English PEN for their campaigning and influence.

As to the contents of the Bill, it would be foolish at this stage for any political party to commit itself in detail to a precise view on each clause. That is for a later time but, I hope, not too much later. I can say that, as a whole, the Bill strikes us as being sensible and practical in establishing a better balance between the right to personal reputation, so well argued for in this House today by my noble friend Lord Triesman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh among many others, and the right to free speech; in other words, the balance between Articles 8 and 10.

It is clear that the time has come for the scope of the defence of public interest, as ruled on in Reynolds and Jameel, to be set out in statute. The changes in both words and meaning to the defences of “fair comment” to “honest opinion” and “justification” to “truth” seem at first sight to be reasonable and workable. Similarly, the Clause 9 provision on responsibility for publication and the Clause 10 creation of a single publication rule with discretion for the court seem useful and important proposals. We will want to look closely at Clause 11 dealing with actions for defamation brought by corporate bodies, but the Australian experience and the noble Lord’s draft clause dealing with our own law looks more than interesting.

I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, had to say about Clauses 14 and 15 and the issue of trial by jury in defamation cases. We believe that on balance it is right to reverse the presumption very much for the reasons set out by the noble and learned Lord and in paragraph 151 of the Explanatory Notes. It is interesting and encouraging that that excellent organisation, Justice, agrees in principle. Of course, the interests of justice caveat is absolutely essential to that proposition.

A possible addition to the Bill arises out of a concern referred to already on a number of occasions in speeches today, raised by the organisation Mumsnet. It is concerned that the Bill as presently drafted does not provide explicit cover for hosts of third-party comments. I invite the noble Lord to consider that point, not necessarily today but as the Bill progresses.

There will obviously be a great deal of further discussion and debate before the final shape of the reforms is agreed. I do not think that anyone can argue that this is not a huge step forward. However, the Bill does not deal with—and it is not intended to deal with—what in the modern cliché could be described as the elephant in the room. That is the question of costs in defamation actions. I make no criticism of that at all, as this Bill is concerned with the substantive law and the position on costs does not need primary legislation to be changed. The briefing from the Libel Reform Campaign makes the point, already referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, that fighting a libel case can cost 140 times the European average and can routinely cost £1 million. But the maximum 100 per cent success fee allowed under conditional fee agreements is just too high. Alongside the high legal costs anyway, we believe that this has had a harmful effect on freedom of expression and think that the 100 per cent figure should be lowered—and should be lowered now. The reply of the present Government to that proposition is that we should wait, perhaps until the Government legislate on Sir Rupert Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs, which has come up today. Sir Rupert has trenchant views on success fees generally, I think it is fair to say.

The Jackson report is a massive piece of work covering the whole civil law field. Given its length, importance and complexity, it was produced in a remarkably short period of time, and praise has been given to Sir Rupert for his work. However, with the greatest of respect to how government works—and I have a little experience of that—I do not believe that legislation will emerge for some considerable time yet. I would love to be proved wrong, but I fear that I will not be. It is not like waiting for Godot, who of course never came; waiting for Jackson will be rewarded eventually, I am sure—but not soon, and certainly not in the near future, and it is in the near future that we need change to the success fee regime in this field. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords, agree with that proposition. So I urge the Government to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation, as we did—and, I hope, with more success—as an interim though not the final solution to what is, as many noble Lords have said, a major problem.

Meanwhile, the Bill will of course pass its Second Reading and will then be subject to detailed consideration and discussion. We very much hope that that will be so. We wish it well and pledge to do our part in taking it forward. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Immigration: Refugee and Migrant Justice

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I will take the last point first. Yes, there is bound to be a certain amount of disruption if an organisation that covers 7 per cent of cases goes into administration. However, I can assure the House that the Government are giving high priority to minimise that disruption. On whether other non-profit-making practitioners are facing difficulty, it is true that there have been complaints about the change in funding and fees, which was made by the previous Administration with an eye to saving taxpayers’ money. The change is not popular but, as my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, the organisations are coping. Trying to balance the good work that these organisations are doing against the taxpayers’ not-bottomless pot is difficult.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister has praised those who worked for Refugee and Migrant Justice, which over a number of years did an excellent job. I am also delighted that the Legal Services Commission is ensuring that the existing clients of that organisation continue to have proper advice and representation. Are there estimates of the extra cost to the Legal Services Commission in ensuring that proper advice and representation from fresh providers?

Parliament: MP Numbers and Constituency Review

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my noble friend will know that the sole objective of this exercise is to bring greater fairness to our electoral regulations and equal weight to votes. He is right, of course, that common sense and a sense of history and of geography will have an influence on this, and we will consider the implications for Wales and the other nations and regions of this kingdom when we come forward with our proposals.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, is quite right; local consultations, representations and involvement in boundary reviews, particularly this boundary review, are vital. The Liberal Democrats have always been proud of their commitment to local democracy. My question is: will this commitment survive? If promises such as the ones on VAT can so easily be shredded, how can the Minister convince the House that this commitment to local democracy will not be sacrificed in due course?