Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

That is a first. I am delighted to hear it. The Joint Committee looking at the draft Defamation Bill agreed with the point that I am attempting to make now. It said of the Government's proposals that, "““we are sufficiently concerned about them to ask the Government to reconsider the implementation of the Jackson Report in respect of defamation actions, with a view to protecting further the interests of those without substantial financial means””." The Government are trying to stay the House's hand—many Members of this House are concerned about the impact on these cases—by saying that they will deal with the issue in the Defamation Bill. That is not good enough. In some ways, we will break the civil justice system in this Bill and the Government are saying, ““Don't worry; we'll fix it later””. That is not good enough. Even if the Government change the definition of defamation, what will they do to make litigation viable for those of limited means? The fundamental problem, as the House knows, is that damages are low in these cases. Indeed, Lord Justice Jackson recommended increasing them substantially in a part of his report, but not the only part, which has been ignored by the Government. The costs of bringing them in are quite a lot higher. The Government are doing everything they can to make these cases impossible to bring in the future. They are even refusing to put qualified one-way cost shifting in the Bill, which is an essential protection against adverse costs should a litigant lose in this kind of case. The House should not think that it is good enough for the Government to say, ““Trust us; we'll fix it all later””. The amendment should be supported because, as the noble Baroness said in her thoughtful and impressive speech, it is not good enough just to rely on some Bill that may or may not appear in the next Queen's Speech whose contents we know not.