Lord McNally: My Lords, I was getting a little frivolous earlier because we have had a long day, but I associate myself absolutely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Mawhinney. Just as at the beginning of this exercise, the question of costs and cost protection has been one of the keys to this problem of defamation. I share exactly the views expressed. It is a little sad that our distinguished judicial Members are no longer with us, and perhaps we will return to this. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, will remember when I and the previous Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, gave evidence to the committee. I know that Ken Clarke was absolutely convinced that this was one of the keys to the whole thing. I have not discussed this in any detail with the present Lord Chancellor but I cannot imagine that he is any more or less convinced on this.
That said, we do not consider the amendment necessary. The rule committee does not operate in a vacuum and civil procedure rules are made by a process that requires the approval of the Lord Chancellor for rules made by the committee. I take it on board; I have been in this job long enough to realise that you have to be careful in the separation of powers that we have in our system between the responsibilities of the judiciary, the Government and Parliament. But that does not mean that Parliament or the Government cannot send the clearest messages to the judiciary. That is why I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, earlier that case management is a major responsibility now for judges, and in this case in particular.
The Government can and do put before the committee proposals for amendments to rules of court. The Lord Chancellor is also able by virtue of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to notify the committee that he thinks it expedient that rules should achieve a specified purpose, and in such a case the committee must make rules as it considers necessary to achieve the specified purpose. Ministry of Justice officials have discussed the contents of the Bill and related procedural issues with members of the senior judiciary on a number of occasions during the period in which the Bill has developed. Most recently, a meeting has taken place to discuss these issues with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, who heads the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. The Government will put proposals for procedural changes to support the new Act before the Civil Procedure Rule Committee shortly. Our intention is to ensure that these are in place when the Act comes into force. I hope on that basis that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.