Lords Sitting of 5 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Lord Alderdice
John Thomas Alderdice, Esquire, having been created Baron Alderdice, of Knock in the City of Belfast, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Redesdale and the Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns
Dame Joyce Anne Anelay, DBE, having been created Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, of St. Johns in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seccombe and the Baroness Miller of Hendon.

Stonehenge Millennium Scheme
2.57 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to mark the millennium with the enhancement of Stonehenge and its environs, and what steps the Department of National Heritage has taken to co-ordinate and energise the participation of the Millennium Commission, the Highways Agency, English Heritage and the National Trust to this end.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, English Heritage is preparing a bid to the Millennium Commission for a grant towards the cost of its Stonehenge millennium scheme. This will include the removal of the existing visitor facilities and car park, the closure of the A.344 road, and a new visitor complex to the east of the world heritage site. The National Trust is actively involved in the project. The Millennium Commission is an independent body and it would not of course be proper for the Government to seek to influence its decisions on particular bids.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that mildly encouraging reply. Can she confirm that Stonehenge is a monument in the guardianship of the Secretary of State for National Heritage although looked after, of course, by English Heritage? Does she agree with me that the present state of Stonehenge and its environs is a national disgrace? May I express the hope that the Government will do all in their appropriate power to facilitate this scheme which perhaps does offer hope of a resolution to some of the problems of Stonehenge?
Baroness Trumpington: Quite a lot of questions, my Lords. I confirm that Stonehenge and the 13 acres
594
around it are the property of the Secretary of State for National Heritage but will remain completely under the management of English Heritage. The closure of the A.344 is an essential part of English Heritage's proposal. However, if there are any objections leading to an inquiry on the closure of the road, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to make the final decision. I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of-the proposal in advance as that could prejudice any subsequent decision. I agree entirely that the current visitor facilities and car park are a national disgrace. The new plan is to remove all those items and other 20th century clutter, including the A.344. The new visitor centre will be outside the world heritage site.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, my question is really to ask why the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, needs to be asked at all. Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that her noble friend is among Britain's greatest archaeologists, in touch with everyone, knowledgeable about all aspects of the subject and that if he does not know what the DNH is doing about Stonehenge, there is something seriously wrong inside that department? Will the noble Baroness investigate why information is not getting out?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that that is being perfectly beastly to my noble friend who is acknowledged as a great expert and who, in this case, has bowed to my knowledge.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the protection of Stonehenge, which is druidic, has nothing whatever to do with the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can only agree.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there any legal bar to the millennium heritage fund contributing to the cost of the long road tunnel which is the only sensible solution to this tangle?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Millennium Commission is not allowed to pay for road schemes.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the suggestion that there should be a tunnel, may I ask my noble friend whether she has any idea of how much such tunnelling would cost?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes, the inescapable fact is that it would cost £300 million.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, speaking as someone who lives 10 miles to the west of Stonehenge on the A.303, may I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that the only solution to the problems of that road

595
is to construct a tunnel and that everything must wait until such funds are available as are necessary to perform that task?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in connection with the A.303, would the noble Baroness accept that any suggestion that the National Trust should allow any of its land to be used for widening the present A.303 as a so-called "temporary" so-called "measure" would be opposed by the trust with the utmost vigour? Does she further agree that if there ever was a case for the National Trust invoking its statutory power to take its objections to Parliament this must surely be the most important to have cropped up in the past 100 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: I do know the answer, so don't start laughing. Improvements to the A.303 remain in the Government's longer term road programme. In the meantime, we understand that English Heritage and the National Trust are continuing to look for alternative ways of funding the long tunnel solution.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, am I right in gathering from my noble friend's earlier answer that the Government recognise that although they may not be able to afford the right answer to the key problems of that road at the moment, the one thing they could afford even less would be to imperil their well deserved reputation for cherishing this country's environment over the past 17 years by allowing the wrong solution to go forward?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have to face the fact that a £300 million tunnel is currently unaffordable, but that does not stop our pursuing other options for improving the site and its facilities. The scheme put forward by English Heritage for a visitor centre is very exciting. I wish English Heritage every success in finding a suitable partner under the private finance initiative and in making a bid to the Millennium Commission.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, to mark the millennium, would the noble Baroness be prepared to designate Stonehenge as the tourist hub of Wessex, with funds to promote the presentation of the West Country, so that we may increase our contribution to the tourist revenue of the United Kingdom as a whole and emerge on a par with London and Scotland?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not see that that is necessary. Stonehenge is already a world heritage
596
site. There are 14 such sites in the United Kingdom, including the Palace of Westminster, a fact I did not know until I had my briefing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as Stonehenge was built by Welshmen with Welsh stone, is the noble Baroness aware that we fully support English Heritage and the action it is taking?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I congratulate the Welshmen of the day who transported the stone.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, given that the Millennium Commission is, as my noble friend reminded us, an entirely independent body and acknowledging that it does much excellent work, would it not be better if there were not two Cabinet Ministers on its board? That puzzles people.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, they are only two among nine.

MEPs: Expenses
3.6 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the expenses liable to be claimed by Members of the European Parliament.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, Members of the European Parliament may claim expenses that they incur in performance of their parliamentary duties as follows: general office costs; travel within their member state and to official meetings or conferences; subsistence costs while attending official meetings; and costs of employing secretaries or assistants.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but, in view of recent allegations made both on television and in the newspapers about the level of expenses paid to Members of the European Parliament, would the Government make the facts widely known in order to protect the reputations of representatives of the European Parliament and to clear up any misunderstanding?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we do not favour trial by television or by any other form of media. However, if there is a problem, it should be investigated. I do not think that one should make any judgment until such an investigation has been carried out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the definitive report in The Sunday Times which stated that one lady Member of the European Parliament had admitted that she had "made a profit"—that was the term used—of £45,000 per year out of travel on top of all the other money that she was allowed to draw? Bearing in mind that a large slice of that will

597
be paid for by the taxpayers of this country, does that not contrast with the tardy increase which has just been forced on your Lordships?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I feel absolutely certain that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House would love to have the allowances given to Members of the European Parliament. I am aware of that article in The Sunday Times and, although we all know that one should not always believe what is written in the press, the President of the European Parliament has recognised that there is a problem with the allowance system. He announced on 24th October that he was launching a full review of that system. Today's Daily Telegraph notes that the Parliament's leaders will meet tomorrow to consider reforms. We welcome those steps to put the house in order.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the research which shows that each active Member of your Lordships' House costs the taxpayer about £50,000 per year; that each Member of the House of Commons costs the taxpayer about £450,000 per year; and that each Member of the European Parliament—for 60 days of rather doubtful work per annum—costs the taxpayer more than £1 million per year? Does my noble friend agree that that might be less unjustifiable if the European Parliament ever did anything useful?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I refrain from commenting on the last point. However, when making these comparisons noble Lords should bear in mind that the costs of the European Parliament reflect rented buildings in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and the costs of travel, translation and interpretation. By contrast, the Palace of Westminster is rent free. I believe that the costs of the French and German parliaments are on a par with those of the European Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 17th October last at precisely 7.30 p.m. ITV broadcast a programme entitled "Fat Cats" which incorporated a full examination, with the aid of cameras, of how various expenses were claimed and gave a broad indication of the result? Does the noble Lord agree that it would be helpful if a video tape were placed in the Library so that noble Lords could gather the contentions put forward? Is the noble Lord further aware that on 17th October, entirely by coincidence, the Treasury sent to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House an indication that there was a gentleman's agreement between the European Parliament and the Council that they should not examine or amend each other's claims on European funds for administration? Does the noble Lord agree that we ought to know a little more about this matter before we proceed much further?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, a copy of the big story on 17th October, which was an ITV programme, has been placed in the Library. As far as concerns the allegations made in that programme, we take seriously
598
any suggestion of the improper use of public funds. We have been at the forefront of efforts to combat waste and fraud within the European Community.
To deal with the agreement between the European Parliament and the Council, a Council resolution in 1970, prior to the accession of the United Kingdom, provided that the European Parliament and the Council would not examine each other's budgets, although noble Lords will be aware that overall limits are set.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the inordinate costs of European Members, does the Minister agree that it would be logical for the Government to press the Commission to end the farce of having three locations for the European Parliament instead of one?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the situation is far from ideal. However, the establishment in three different countries pre-dates the UK's accession. I believe that there is little prospect of securing the unanimous agreement of member states for a single site.
Lord Richard: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy, can the noble Lord confirm that the agreement as to where the European Parliament sits is nothing at all to do with the Commission, and that it is the Commission's view that it would be much better if it sat in one place?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes.

Student Loans Act: Cost
3.14 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of putting the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996 on the statute book.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is not possible to isolate the different components which relate directly to enacting the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996. This would involve disaggregating the time spent by officials and Parliament from other work they were doing at the same time both in my department and elsewhere. There are no detailed records which would enable estimates to be produced with any degree of accuracy.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not entirely surprised by the answer, although I am disappointed. It is a great pity that costs cannot be calculated a little more accurately. Is the Minister aware that this Act, which he described at Second Reading as giving students a better, quicker, convenient, more varied and comprehensive service, had its Third Reading in this House on 1st April 1996, which is perhaps a rather appropriate date in view of what happened later? Is he further aware that in September of this year, less than six months later, the Secretary of State announced that she was dropping the twin-track scheme in favour of privatisation of the Student Loans Company which will

599
be a private monopoly? How can the Government possibly justify the waste of money and parliamentary time that the passing of this Act involved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that it was a waste of parliamentary time or the time and cost of my officials. I believe that to have attempted to give the accurate reply which the noble Baroness sought would have been a disproportionate use of taxpayers' money and would not have been recommended. As we made clear earlier, lending to private individuals is not a natural or desirable function of the public sector. Our policy was to transfer provision from the public to the private sector. That will result in significant improvement in both effectiveness and customer service. The noble Baroness will be aware that we had discussions with a number of financial institutions. We concluded, in the light of the assurances that I gave to this House and that colleagues gave in another place, that our long-term goal to bring the private sector into the student loans scheme could best be achieved through the sale of part of the existing student debt and the contracting out of the administrative work of the Student Loans Company. We would not have been able to come to that conclusion had we not been able to carry out the market test that we did earlier this year. The 1996 Act enabled us to do just that market test.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government learn from what was certainly an unnecessary and expensive fiasco that it is foolish to rush privatisation legislation through Parliament before it has been accepted by the private sector? Can the Minister give this House an assurance that they will never do such a silly thing again?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we will continue to pursue privatisation wherever it is suitable. No doubt the party opposite will continue to oppose every single small act of privatisation, as it has done over the years; and it has been wrong on every single occasion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from one noble Lord on these Back Benches that his explanation is wholly unacceptable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend does not find my explanation as helpful as it might have been. I shall not repeat the explanation that I have given, but I may have further discussions outside the Chamber and possibly convince my noble friend of the correctness of our approach.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the noble Lord expand a little on the reply that he gave a few moments ago? Does he agree that the market testing occurred prior to the Bill becoming law and that there was no necessity for it in order to carry out that market testing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong. We could not conduct that market testing without the legislation. That was why we had to have discussions with the financial institutions after the passing of that Act.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely consultation before publishing a Bill or passing an Act is sensible. Does the Minister agree that only two banks and I believe one building society showed any interest whatsoever in that legislation and a great many others were strongly against it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously consultation is possible before the passage of legislation, but detailed negotiation was not possible until we had concluded that legislation. The noble Baroness is right. There were only two banks and a number of other financial institutions which were interested at the later stages, but at the earlier stages a considerable number expressed interest.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister give the dates when the discussions and consultation with the private sector began?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not without notice, but the detailed negotiations which relied upon the passage of that Act took place after its passage. As I made clear to the noble Baroness, the 1996 Act enabled us to conduct that market test which was so important in terms of coming to the conclusions that we did.

War Memorials and Vandalism
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to provide help and advice on protecting public war memorials from vandalism, theft and neglect.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there is no simple solution. We all wish to see our public war memorials respected and cared for as befits their role in commemorating those who gave their lives in the service of their country. War memorials range from large national ones like the Cenotaph in Whitehall—for which the Government are responsible—to a simple cross on the village green. In most cases, responsibility rightly lies with the local community which erected the memorial, often through public subscription.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply just before remembrance weekend. Has he considered the suggestion made in a leading article in The Times that local schools might

601
voluntarily look after these memorials? Does he agree that British war memorials and graves abroad are well looked after, thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, often assisted by local people? For example, the memorial in Normandy for the Scottish division in which I served, not inside a war cemetery, is diligently looked after by the local villages.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that example. He is right. There are many occasions when the local community can help to look after memorials which are often dedicated to those from the community who died. The suggestion in The Times that schoolchildren might look after them is interesting, but the Government could not direct schools to do that. I see no reason, though, why a particular school might not be encouraged to clean and tend them, or even for a CCTV to be donated.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister aware—his noble friend Lord Chesham is—that a number of us visited Malaysia recently? We found the Commonwealth war graves cemetery, as one would expect, to have been looked after marvellously. All of them are. The following week, when my wife and I visited Georgetown in Penang, we came across a scaled down version of the Cenotaph which was not well looked after. A plaque had been removed and a small tree was growing up the side of the memorial. Does the Foreign Office have any responsibility for keeping an eye on such matters, because it would be better removed rather than allowing it to stand as it is.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, most of the war graves abroad are the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to which we give a substantial sum of money—some £24.5 million a year. I am not familiar with the memorial in Penang to which the noble Lord refers. I assume that it would come under the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but if it does not, I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sure that were my noble friend Lady Strange here, as current president of the War Widows Association—I was an earlier president—she would say how distressing it is for widows if they find that these memorials, which are of such significance to them, are damaged or destroyed in any way. Does my noble friend agree that there is a general problem with vandalism, some of which is not directed specifically at these memorials? It would be directed at any memorial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. When these memorials are damaged it causes enormous distress not just to people in the locality but to the relatives of those whom the memorial commemorates. I agree with my noble
602
friend that it is not just memorials that are vandalised; many other things are too. It is that which causes great distress throughout the whole country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that, coming up to Remembrance Day, we should cherish the memorials of those who gave their lives for our country. I hope very much that the Minister will agree with that. Is he aware that the Question on the Order Paper asks the Government to give advice? It may well be that schools, communities or local authorities should be responsible for these matters. Will the Government step forward and give some advice? It is up to government to lead.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in my Answer I tried to explain where I thought the responsibility lies. It does in fact lie with the communities whose dead are recorded on the memorials. It is for local communities to respect those memorials. Of course the noble Lord is correct when he says that approaching Remembrance Day we should particularly remember those who have fallen and whose memorials are referred to in the Question. It is essentially a matter for the local community. I have suggested ways in which that should be done. There are a few national memorials such as the Cenotaph, the Merchant Navy Memorial at Tower Hill and the Royal Air Force Memorial at Runnymede which are the responsibility of the Government. They are looked after properly and well.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the wickedest form of vandalism is stealing metal, as valuable scrap, and carved stone for sale to garden centres, would that be less likely if the memorials and their surroundings were kept in good condition?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The answer is yes. When places are in a derelict condition—it does not matter whether it is a memorial, a house or building—that, in itself, encourages vandalism. If it is kept in proper and good order, the chances of vandalism occurring are less. I hope therefore that people in the localities will be able to look after their own memorials. If that were to be done by local people, schoolchildren or well wishers, it would be a good thing.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it possible to protect war memorials from vandalism or theft without a 24-hours-a-day guard being placed on them or locating them in places where such supervision can be provided?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course one cannot guarantee anything against theft or vandalism. If we start protecting them with fences that would remove the purpose of memorials. One could possibly have CCTV. It would be for people in the locality to decide whether they think that is the right thing to do. The real problem is caused by those people in the community who commit vandalism of whatever nature.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
3.27 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

V. Craigavon,

L. Gallacher,

V. Oxfuird.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Meston,

B. Seccombe,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As this is the final Motion in the annual series of committee Motions placed before your Lordships' House, and without wishing to divert your Lordships from the usual way in which your Lordships prefer to deal with these Motions—that is to say, largely but not entirely formally—I should like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House for participating in the work of these committees, which is so vital, and, in particular, I should like to thank the usual channels and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers for the very extensive work which they do in preparation for the placing of these Motions before your Lordships.
The work that they do is time consuming. They do it in a painstaking way. I am the happy recipient of the outcome of the consultations which they undertake. I say that because that work contributes also to the formation of these committees which, through their reports in particular, play such an important part in establishing and enhancing the reputation of your Lordships' House. I think particularly of your Lordships' investigative
604
committees which are among those which I do not chair. That work is valued not just as a unique contribution to the work of Parliament itself, it is valued outside because it makes a contribution to the well-being of the nation as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

V. Falkland,

L. Gallacher,

V. Hood,

E. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor,

L. Monkswell,

L. Renton,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
When in 1994 I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to inquire into the rules and procedures of the civil courts, my principle purpose was to take forward the recommendation of the civil justice review that there should be a single set of rules. Little did I realise quite how effectively he would capture the public imagination and the willingness and the desire on all sides for reform of our civil justice system. In just two years, he carried the debate to all parts of England and Wales. Rarely has the topic of civil justice and its relevance to the economic and social well-being of this country attracted such widespread interest.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was assisted throughout his inquiry by a small group of assessors. These were Senior Master Turner; District Judge Greenslade, now President of the Association of District Judges; Rupert Jackson, QC; John Bolton and Phillip Sycamore; Professor Ross Cranston, the academic consultant; and Dr. Richard Susskind, the consultant on information technology. They, and the supporting secretariat, contributed greatly to the production of what the noble and learned Lord calls, in the introduction to his final report,
"a programme for change which could radically improve access to civil justice".
An even wider group were also drawn into the process of developing proposals in working groups. Contributions to the public debate came forward not only from the profession and the judiciary, but also from individual litigants, business and consumers and representative groups. Those of your Lordships who wish to see in greater detail the issues and problems and the proposed reforms made by the noble and learned Lord will find these set out in the interim report, which was published in June 1995, and the final report, which was published in July this year.

605
The connection between litigation involving disproportionately complex procedures and litigation which generates disproportionate costs is all too obvious. It is clearly wrong that people should be deterred from taking legal action due to the prospect of being financially mined if they do so. This fear brings our system of civil justice into disrepute. By the same token, it is also disreputable to exploit the fear of legal costs so as to deter persons from defending frivolous and unmeritorious claims. Our procedures, both in the judicial oversight of cases and the sanctions available, must guard against oppressive exploitation of the system.
A thriving society needs an effective justice system. Citizens and businesses must be able to conduct their affairs within a legal framework which is both fair and certain. When legal rights and obligations are breached, the law needs to be clear not only as to the remedies available but also as to the mechanisms which will provide access to justice. Civil litigation must become more affordable and cases must move forward more swiftly once they have entered the court system.
In the field of criminal justice, the importance of ensuring that cases come on for trial in a timely manner is well-recognised. So, too, in cases involving children, where there is also a clear recognition of the need for expedition. However, in other areas of civil litigation there has been less appreciation of the need for timeliness in finally resolving disputes. The Government believe that cases should not be allowed to linger on just for the tactical advantage of the parties or for the convenience of the courts or the professional advisers.
The Government welcome the expansion of the role of judicial case management. Courts will take greater responsibility for determining how cases progress, the level at which they should be tried, the early definition of the issues, the encouragement to settle and the deterrence of time-wasting or costly manoeuvres. I am pleased by the support which the principle of case management has attracted from the judiciary and the profession.
I also welcome the emphasis given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to the benefits of alternative dispute resolution. I would regard it as self evident that before launching litigation the disputed issues and evidence should have been foreshadowed in communications between the parties. It is only with the knowledge of the information relevant to the particular situation that the parties can begin to address on a fair basis the scope for settlement of the dispute. I believe that it is right to give new emphasis to the proper role which the court itself can play in promoting settlement and the use of other avenues of resolving disputes. Even if litigation is necessarily adversarial, the courts should be alert to deter tactical antagonism. That is an abuse of the system.
Following receipt of the noble and learned Lord's final report to me in July, I took a little time to reflect on the recommendations and to consider how best to take matters forward. Last week I informed Parliament of my proposed strategy for implementation. Copies of my implementation strategy
606
have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The target which I have set for implementation of the key aspects of the reforms, most particularly the fast track proposals, is Autumn 1998.
The strategy which I have announced does not represent my final word on how things will progress. The recommendations cover a wide field and there is a great deal of further work to be done to secure successful implementation. I am particularly keen to ensure that this further work goes forward in the spirit of partnership between my department, the court service, the judiciary at all levels and users of the courts, in particular the legal profession.
I am very grateful to the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, who has risen to the challenge of promoting the needs of the civil justice system so that it in turn remains responsive to the needs of litigants. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for agreeing, despite his new responsibilities as Master of the Rolls, to continue supervising the drafting of the remainder of the draft new rules. Given his position at the head of the civil appellate system, he clearly has a continuing interest in the planned reforms.
The Bill which I commend to your Lordships today is just a first step, though an important one, paving the way for the implementation of the procedural reforms. I consulted on my proposals for this measure earlier this year and was pleased by the degree of support which they attracted. The Bill's provisions are primarily aimed at providing the power and strengthening the structure on which reform of the rules and practices of the courts will depend.
I now turn to the particular provisions contained in the Bill. If we are to succeed in simplifying procedures, we need to have a unified set of rules of court applying in the Supreme Court and county courts alike. I should perhaps emphasise to your Lordships that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. And the rule-making powers to which it relates are those which apply to civil, non-family, litigation.
Clause 1 provides the power to provide for a unified set of rules of court applying in the Supreme Court and county courts alike. A draft of the general parts of the new rules of court was published alongside the noble and learned Lord's final report and has been placed in the Libraries. Consultation on the general shape of those rules is under way. Consultation on the detail of particular elements will follow.
Clause 1 is supplemented by Schedule 1 which preserves and in some respects enlarges the broad scope of the existing rule-making powers. Of the matters contained in that schedule, I might mention in particular paragraph 4. The proposal that the rule-making powers should extend to the power to make civil procedure rules which impact on the rules of evidence attracted a large measure of support on consultation. I believe that the rules of evidence should facilitate and not hamper the early identification of the issues in the case and the evidence relevant to them. Recent developments in the field of civil justice have promoted relaxation of the strict rules of evidence in order to ensure that parties put their cards on the table at an early stage. This can be

607
seen, for example, both in the provisions regarding the requirements for admissibility of witness statements, contained in Section 5 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the further reform of the hearsay rule in the Civil Evidence Act 1995.
Relaxation of the strict rules and formalities of proof would be likely to be of assistance, for example, in simplifying procedures and enabling more pro-active case management in courts dealing with pre-trial applications and summary judgment.
Clause 2 makes provision for the composition of the rule committee. I regard it as important to retain clear lines of responsibility regarding the making of rules. The responsibility for making rules of court will lie with a rule committee, and responsibility for approving the rules will remain to the Lord Chancellor. The composition of the committee needs to allow for participation by the judiciary, the legal profession and others, but it must be sufficiently small and workmanlike to deal expeditiously and authoritatively with rule changes. For the first time, a rule committee will contain lay members. I believe this to be a significant development in making the process more responsive to the needs of litigants themselves, not just those of the lawyers. Subsection (5) of this clause places an onus on the committee to make rules which are simple and simply expressed.
Clause 3 provides for the negative resolution procedure to apply to the civil procedure rules. I believe it is right that rules of court should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is currently the position governing the rules of the Supreme Court. County court rules have not hitherto been subject to scrutiny.
Clause 4 deals with the need for power to make consequential amendments. This partly reflects the current rule-making provisions contained in the Supreme Court Act and the County Courts Act 1984. Your Lordships will understand that the powers conferred by this Bill will not be exercised until some time after it is enacted and it is important that there should be power to make alignments in other enactments reflecting the terms in which the rule committee's rules of procedure are made.
Clause 5 clarifies the scope of county court practice directions. Practice directions are already used to a certain extent, both in the High Court and local county courts for procedural purposes, including case management. The use of practice directions to promote effective and flexible case management will become all the more important in future. So too will the need for consistency of practice which can be properly supported by information technology. This clause will also put on a statutory basis the Lord Chancellor's powers to make county court practice directions. And in future it will be the case that county court practice directions will require my approval, or the approval of a person whom I authorise—here I have in mind, the Vice-Chancellor. When I consulted on this matter, the depth of feeling among practitioners in particular as to the need for consistency of practice between county courts was very marked.
608
Clause 6 deals with a point which while not central to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would fall to be covered in the new code of rules. The law and practice relating to Anton Piller orders (which are court orders aimed at preserving evidence needed for civil proceedings) was considered by a committee appointed by the Judges' Council and consulted on in 1992. At that time I supported the view that this was a matter which it would be beneficial to put on a statutory footing. The Government believe, for reasons of principle, that powers which, in effect, amount to a right to require entry to premises should have the overt approval of Parliament, and should not solely rest on the footing of a court ordered requirement of consent. This Bill provides the first opportunity since then to address the point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has advocated the need for parties to adopt a sensible and co-operative approach from the earliest stages at which a potential claim begins to materialise. The primary tool for fostering this approach will be the development of pre-action protocols which identify the information which ought to be exchanged to put the parties in a position to consider settlement on a fair and well informed basis. The Government would wish to support that initiative. Clause 7, therefore, takes power to widen the statutory powers regarding the disclosure of documents before proceedings commence. We shall have to wait and see how the pre-action protocols progress before activating this power, but it is clearly important to encourage this development.
This Bill fits very well with current developments in the conduct of civil litigation, of legal aid and legal services which the Government have been pursuing and supporting. I shall continue with the programme of work outlined in my implementation strategy to secure successful implementation of the proposed reforms of the civil justice system. This Bill is a vitally important step in the process of reform which has been widely welcomed and is of vital importance to all our citizens.
I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has decided to make his maiden speech in this debate. We all look forward to learning from him in the light of his great experience of matters relevant to the subject matter of this debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, from these Benches I too say with what keen anticipation we await the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and not merely because he is a distinguished Queen's Counsel who hails from the Principality.
I have said before, and I say again, that the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—both the interim and final report—are a creative attempt to address the twin evils of civil litigation; namely, excessive cost and delay. His judgment is that those twin evils arise basically from a single cause but one which has many manifestations; that our adversarial system has

609
led to cases being run by the lawyers, not by the courts, and implicitly to the disadvantage of the litigants but not to the disadvantage of the lawyers.
The noble and learned Lord's proposed solution is:
"A fundamental transfer in responsibility for the management of civil litigation from litigants and their legal advisers to the judges".
What the noble and learned Lord proposes, if not a revolution in how civil litigation has been traditionally conducted, is a transformation in the culture of civil litigation. His objective is one which I share and my party shares—a cheaper, faster, simpler civil justice system in an environment which promotes co-operation and early resolution of disputes, preferably outside the courts. Litigation should be the port of last resort.
Any layman studying this Bill to which we are invited to give a Second Reading today would be forgiven for thinking that it is anodyne in the extreme; that it is concerned merely with lawyers' law; that to redraft two cumbersome sets of rules into a single simplified set must be no more than ordinary common sense. However, that conceals the transformation in the culture of civil litigation which the proposed rule changes are intended to effect.
I want to make it plain that, subject to one or two qualifications, with which I believe the noble and learned Lord himself would agree, I support that cultural change. I think it vital that the existing good and co-operative relationship between Bench and Bar does not become a casualty of the implementation of the reports. If those relationships were to be damaged, I believe that that would be the opposite of what the noble and learned Lord intends.
Judicial case management is already substantially in place in many courts—the commercial court, the High Court and the Chancery Division. Generally it is working well but it is capable of going adrift. Perhaps I may give two hypothetical examples, neither entirely divorced from reality.
On day one of the trial the judge has counsel and solicitors before him. They discuss the forward progress of the trial on the basis of the needs of the particular case. The judge goes off for two days to read the documents which the lawyers agree are the critical documents. The judge and counsel agree on a timetable for the cross-examination of witnesses, specifying the anticipated length of each cross-examination. The trial resumes two days later. The timetable is not just adhered to but is improved upon. The trial is concluded earlier than anticipated. That is a triumph of judicial case management—a co-operative endeavour between the judge and the lawyers.
Now let us take this hypothetical example. On day one the judge says that he will allow counsel on each side no more than half a day each to open the case. Counsel protest. They both say that there are difficult technical issues in which the judge must be sufficiently educated by a longer oral opening and explanation so that thereafter the trial can proceed expeditiously. The judge overrules their protests. The trial proceeds after the abbreviated openings. The judge gradually comes to an appreciation that he does not understand the issues and permits very long cross-examination of experts, the object of which is
610
to educate the judge through cross-examination both in the issues and in the documents. The trial is a shambles and ludicrously long.
When power is transferred, it is important not to inhale too deeply. The moral is that judicial case management must be a co-operative endeavour between the judge and the lawyers and, when at all possible, should proceed on the basis of agreement after full discussion of the needs of every individual case; and every case is an individual case.
I should like to see the new rules reflect an obligation on the court when setting a timetable to discuss with the parties' representatives the needs of the particular case in relation to openings, the duration of cross-examinations and final speeches and to have regard to their representations.
I am an enemy of the extensive, uncontrolled orality which used to be the hallmark of civil litigation. I am also an enemy of undisciplined and irrelevant cross-examination. I am a friend of concision. But the judges must carry the profession with them in timetabling trials. These observations go particularly to draft Rules 1.3, 39.5 and 39.6 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I shall not go into the detail of them now, but I think that draft Rule 39.6 is probably too rigid.
I turn now to the resource implications for the implementation of the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Effective case management by the judges will require resources to provide training, technology, back-up and perhaps greater judge power. Lord Justice Henry, the Chairman of the Judicial Studies Board, was only being realistic when he said recently that training in case management would,
"need a substantial increase in the Board's Annual Budget",
which is now £3.2 million. Rightly he said it would "not be a cheap fix". But, leaving further training aside, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, himself recognises that case management would,
"mean making realistic provision for reading time for judges … more clerical assistance … [and perhaps] the use of Law Clerks in heavy cases".
And there are other resource implications: the impact on legal advice and assistance. The noble and learned Lord says that one feature of his "new landscape" will be that,
"litigants who are not legally represented will be able to get more help from advice centres and from the courts".
Another is that,
"court staff will provide information and help to litigants on how to progress their case".
The noble and learned Lord acknowledges that his reforms would be more efficient if,
"legal aid funding is available for pre-litigation resolution and alternative dispute resolution".
So these are serious resource implications which cannot be wished away.
The noble and learned Lord has raised great expectations of what the judges can deliver. His ground thesis is a major shift in the balance of power from the lawyers to the judges as the managers of civil litigation. But the judges cannot deliver without the resources,

611
realistically assessed. To impose great extra burdens on the judges throughout the whole system, without giving them the means to deliver, would oblige them to win a war without the weaponry. It will end not only in failure but also in damaging mutual recrimination between the judiciary and government.
That said, I want the reports of the noble and learned Lord to be implemented with the consent of the professions and with public approval. I think that there may well be major benefits to the Legal Aid Fund from the implementation of the reports. Limited costs, without taxation, of fast track cases would mean that the board would know from the beginning what these cases would cost. Similarly with the multi-track cases, since estimated costs are to be published pre-trial, agreed by the parties and approved by the judge.
The noble and learned Lord's recommendations for multi-party actions are potentially highly beneficial to the Legal Aid Fund. Most multi-party actions are funded by legal aid. Greater judicial control over these highly complex and expensive cases is welcome. The proposal that privately paying litigants may join group actions could bring great benefits to them and to the fund.
Equally important are the recommendations for medical negligence cases. These are almost wholly funded out of the public purse, with the National Health Service on the one side and, on the other, 90 per cent. of the plaintiffs funded by legal aid.
In my keynote address to the Annual Bar Conference on 28th September of this year I said that an incoming government would immediately undertake a wide-ranging review both of the reform of the civil justice system and of civil legal aid. That review would include the noble and learned Lord's reports. That remains the position of the Opposition. A rigorous cost-benefit analysis there must be.
I emphasise that major improvements in the civil justice system must not be made at the expense of the rest of the system, particularly the criminal justice system. I have studied the strategy document which has been placed in the Library of the House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I address in particular the paragraphs dealing with resources—that is, paragraph 28 and those following it. There is a realistic acknowledgement that,
"there will be transitional costs in implementing these reforms".
That must particularly be so in relation to the budget of the Judicial Studies Board and the cost of information technology. But I ask: are they correctly described as "transitional"? Surely they are ongoing. I also ask: in what sense are they "transitional"?
The strategy document says that,
"the resources needed will be made available from within my Budget",
that is, the budget for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I confess that I am unsure as to the precise meaning of the sentence in paragraph 29 of the document which reads:
"I shall consider in consultation with the Court Service what redistribution of resources and other adjustments would assist this transitional stage".
612
In life, and in the law, there is no such thing as a free lunch. I read paragraphs 28 and 29 of the document as code language for unspecified economies elsewhere. I invite the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when replying to say where these economies are to be made. I do not read those paragraphs as pledging new moneys on top of existing budgets. I will assume that that is so, unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack corrects me when he comes to reply.
I understand it to be the wish of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Committee stage take place, not in the Chamber, but in the Moses Room. That would mean that amendments would be discussed but not taken to a Division in Committee. If any amendments had to be taken to a Division, that would happen on Report in the Chamber. I am ready to accept that procedure, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will have an open mind about amendments and be ready to accept them if they will result in a better system. That would reflect the co-operative basis, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, on which these reforms should go forward.
No one can complain of any want of consultation in the preparation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, of both his reports. He included in his consultations all the key groups involved in civil litigation. His draft rules are an excellent first stab. They are themselves the subject of consultation, as we have learnt; but in my view that does not excuse the new rule committee itself from an obligation to consult at a formative stage in its deliberations. The existence of a rule committee does not remove the need for consultations with all the professional bodies and with the consumer organisations both about the substance and the policy of the proposed rule changes.
There are a number of other issues which we will have to address in Committee: first, whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right to say no to a civil justice council, as contemplated in the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf; secondly, whether the new office of Head of Civil Justice should be expressly sanctioned by statute, with the authority of the office enhanced as a result. Thirdly, whether the procedures and composition of the new rule committee should be strengthened by expressly legislating for the inclusion of consumer representatives as such, as distinct from two persons,
"with knowledge of the working of the courts";
by increasing the number of litigation representatives on the committee from two to four in recognition of the increasing specialisation within distinct areas of legal practice; by imposing a statutory obligation on the committee actually to meet as a committee; by providing that four members of the committee are insufficient for signing new rules and that two-thirds of the membership, or eight members, are required; and by requiring the rule committee to consult interested persons and groups prior to settling the new rules, with a similar procedure for consultation on proposed and draft practice directions.

613
Also, and perhaps most importantly, I venture to doubt whether Parliament is sufficiently involved in considering the implementation of the reports of the noble and learned Lord. They represent—as he recognises—a transformation in the culture of civil litigation. In one sense this is an anodyne Bill, proposing only that a new united rule committee make new rules of court for all civil, non-family disputes. I do not think that the provision of the Bill that new rules should be made by statutory instrument, approved by Parliament by the negative resolution procedure, necessarily provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It must be for consideration that approval to the new rules should be by way of the affirmative resolution procedure, so that both Houses of Parliament have a proper opportunity to debate the historic reports of the noble and learned Lord and the transformation of civil litigation which their implementation through new rules will effect.
Finally, we welcome Clause 6, which puts the Anton Piller jurisdiction on a statutory basis. I give notice that we are minded to put down amendments to this clause with the following objectives. First, we wish to ensure that all facets of the jurisdiction are covered; for example, the right of a party, to have delivered up to him his own property: mere preservation orders are not sufficient. Secondly, we wish to make it clear that defendants as well as plaintiffs are entitled to the remedy; and, thirdly, to ensure that compliance with the order is required of employees of those subject to it. Fourthly, we wish to clarify the ambit of the steps that may be taken by those executing the order, in particular so that the party subject to the order can be required to operate his computer system so as to reveal any material stored on his database. Fifthly, we wish to deal with what we perceive to be a problem arising under Clause 6(5) in relation to the privilege against self-incrimination. Sixthly, we wish to make it clear that other forms of injunction may be included in an Anton Piller order. These are matters of detail to which we shall return in Committee.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it is almost impossible to imagine the intensive hard work which must have been required for the production of the interim and final reports by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Other reports in the past have stated the problems of civil justice and the civil justice system, but nowhere else have those problems been more clearly stated or analysed than in the two reports of the noble and learned Lord. Nowhere else has a comprehensive range of solutions been devised in the way proposed by the rules which are to be enabled by this Bill with its particularly wide Long Title. Above all, both his reports started from, and never lost sight of, a series of vital first principles. This leads me to suggest that if ever there was a Bill which should contain a purpose clause, this is it.
The reports have addressed the fundamental problem of delay in litigation, and its causes. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights entitles
614
everyone to the determination of his or her civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time by a tribunal established by law. As is stated on page 12 of the interim report, tolerance of delay allows litigators to carry excessive caseloads in which the minimum possible action occurs over the maximum possible timescale. Over the past 20 years delay has been far less tolerated, not just by the courts but also by the professional disciplinary bodies. This has also been formally recognised in the county courts by the system of automatic directions and in the High Court with case management directions which have turned the procedural screw much harder for the average practitioner. There are times when for the barrister on the cab rank and, no doubt also, for the solicitor with office targets to meet, life becomes a series of unrelenting deadlines. Yet despite these valuable initiatives, litigation still tends to involve preparation by way of last minute sprints to get a case ready for trial.
The two reports consider the structural and cultural causes of delay. One of the problems identified is the extent of the requirement in English law to give and seek disclosure of documents. As the interim report suggests, some of this process has a tactical purpose and is part of the adversarial culture in which winning battles and winning skirmishes becomes almost as important as resolving the real dispute between the parties. But it is also part of the defensive culture which requires us to protect our backs from professional negligence claims for failure to pursue particular lines of inquiry. It is not always easy to decide whether a particular line of inquiry will be cost effective or whether it will reveal an undisclosed chink in the other side's case. For most practitioners it is easier to ask for documents which may be relevant than to try to justify to oneself and to explain to the client why not to ask for them. The possibility that there may be some other documents to be extracted from the other party prevents the careful lawyer from advising a compromise settlement until that particular evidential avenue has been explored.
On the other side the lawyer may, or may not, advise that it is better to disclose a document than to create an impression that there is something to hide. The theoretical object is to get everyone's cards on the table, face up. The practical result is far too many cards. These are all then photocopied and packed into numerous files, which then have to be organised and read, but often only a few of them are referred to at trial. Even then we all have stories of cases in which the only document which really mattered did not appear until the last minute. It is not easy, even for the experienced practitioner, to know where to draw the line in disclosure of documents under the existing rules. It should prove a considerable benefit to have the lines formally redrawn, as is proposed in the reports and draft rules, coupled with procedures and protocols for early disclosure.
The proposals for more efficient and less partisan use of expert evidence are also to be welcomed. All too often in the past one senses that solicitors have consulted and then discarded several expert witnesses

615
until someone is found to say what the client's case requires. This tends to result in the same old war-horses lining up to disagree with one another in court about anything from the time of day to the colour of grass. Greater insistence on jointly instructed experts and the use of court appointed experts, certainly in more straightforward cases, is clearly necessary and will facilitate settlement and will undoubtedly be cost-efficient.
However, the status of experts appointed by the court or by professional bodies at the request of the court, may need clarification, particularly if they are to develop into something like a court welfare officer in family cases. If the primary role and duties of such experts are to be as advisers to the court, there is a case, currently sub judice, which prompts me to ask—without wanting an answer now—whether such experts should normally have some measure of immunity from suit as a form of witness immunity or that which is given to so-called quasi arbitrators.
The reports also propose ways of facilitating settlement of cases. Already the great majority of cases settle before trial. Quite often they settle late because insurers are unwilling to pay out a realistic amount any earlier. The great majority of litigation lawyers spend much of their time trying to achieve settlement, warning clients of the costs, hazards and delay involved in fighting on. But again we are then vulnerable to complaints from individual clients that too much pressure was applied to settle. It is quite often easier to fight on and to let a judge decide the issue than to settle. Some clients are said to need their day in court, although I doubt that the courts are really there to provide such a form of therapy. In my experience the client who needs a day in court is often the client who stamps off afterwards muttering unrepeatable things about British justice.
Alternative dispute resolution is still not widely available. Out of court mediation requires skill and training if it is to command respect and to protect the weaker party. I therefore suggest that there should be more development of in-court mediation, judge-driven, just as litigation itself is to be more judge-driven under these reforms. The recently initiated pilot scheme for matrimonial ancillary relief cases has already adapted many features of the system which other civil cases will have when the Bill becomes operational. The pilot scheme has a requirement for repeated production of costs statements so, in the words of Lord Justice Thorpe, the litigants see what is being spent as clearly as if they were travelling in a London taxi. It also requires a dispute resolution appointment to take place after an initial structured exchange of necessary information before a judge who thereafter has no involvement in the case if it does not settle. An important feature is that every offer and every proposal of any sort and the responses to them, whether or not privileged, can and will normally be put before the court at that appointment. There must he cases outside the area of family law which would benefit from such treatment even if it involves a
616
degree of gentle headbanging and arm twisting. Twisting the arm of some litigants in the direction of their pockets at that stage may well be beneficial.
The proposals for easier commencement of proceedings and for simplified combined rules of procedure can only assist litigants and lawyers. At present, transfer of cases from court to court is not simple and the dichotomy of rules involves paper-chasing and cross-referencing. I have recently represented a couple against whom proceedings were started in the wrong court by someone who probably ought to have known better. The result has been expensive procedural gymnastics for two years which have caused great strain to the couple concerned and deprived everyone of finality and certainty.
The regularising of local practice directions is also welcome. All too often one can go to county courts to be told rather complacently that they have their own way of doing things there, and that the authority for their way of doing things is a rather scruffy piece of paper half hidden on a noticeboard. One instance I recall was of a local direction which was almost certainly ultra vires. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not exaggerate the depth of feeling of practitioners about that feature of the system at present.
At Committee stage I hope that we shall have the opportunity to consider, among other things, the working, the actual meeting, and the composition of the rule committee which includes those intriguing characters in Clause 2 of the Bill,
"two persons with knowledge of … the courts."
We can all think of a considerable number of entirely unsuitable candidates.
I would also support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the first set of rules to be made should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It also seems necessary to look with a little more detail at the Anton Piller order which, quite properly, is now to have a statutory basis. As has been stated, it is a form of order which pushes the powers of the law to their extreme.
It is now 150 years since the County Courts Act 1846 was passed to give a cheap, simple and accessible forum for debt recovery. This Bill should provide another such great landmark if its provisions are properly resourced, piloted and implemented. The worst that could happen to it is that it becomes a victim of its own success, rather like the M.25—the tracks do not prove to be sufficient and there is only limited space for expansion. However, the Bill is welcome and on these Benches we are content with the procedure proposed for the Committee stage.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill. I join also with them in looking forward to the speech to be given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I have perhaps had the pleasure of listening to him more often than some of your Lordships in recent months and I look forward to listening to him

617
again. I have no doubt that his knowledge and experience will greatly enrich the deliberations of this House in the months and years ahead.
I welcome the Bill as a new and hopeful step in the battle to counter the endemic problems of cost, delay and excessive complexity which dog the conduct of civil litigation not only in this country, but not least in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just observed, we have celebrated the 150th anniversary of the county court. The county court was created to counter that intractable problem. It was bitterly opposed by the legal establishment of the day but has proved to be a wise and benign measure which alleviated the problem even if it did not cure it for all time.
The proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have this enormous advantage: that far from being opposed by the legal establishment of the day, they have won its strong support. By his willingness to listen, his wide consultation and his skill in persuasion, his proposals command a high measure of support. Much of course remains to be done in refining the detail, working out the cost, and ensuring, as various noble Lords have already emphasised, that sufficient resources are devoted to financing this transition, and that judges and court staff are educated and trained to perform a role which will be new to them.
Nonetheless, the Bill is an important first step towards the formulation of a common body of rules of court which will be intelligible and uniform. The work will be done by a committee which is big enough to be representative and small enough to be effective. This is the right place to start and I am sure that the Bill will earn your Lordships' wholehearted support.
I simply say this with reference to one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned. I refer to the need for co-operation between Bench and Bar to make these reforms effective. We are all very conscious of that need. I can only say that on every occasion when I have asked for the co-operation of the Bar and legal advisers representing parties in order to seek to achieve a hearing of an appeal in a case much shorter than the parties had planned for, I have never failed to achieve total co-operation; and I have never afterwards heard any complaint that the parties felt they had had an inadequate hearing. I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, Gresford is a name which will resonate with some of your Lordships as the scene of a terrible mine disaster in 1934. My father, as an ordinary policeman, was on duty at the pithead that day, assisting the rescue teams to do what they could. But, as your Lordships may recall, the particular horror of that disaster was that 254 bodies remained buried in the Dennis seam, only seven were recovered, and fewer than 10 people escaped from the night shift at that time. It is a matter of great humility and pride that I have been permitted to add the name of Gresford to my own.
On 23rd February 1937, about a fortnight before I was born not more than a mile from the pithead at Gresford, there was a debate in the other place on the
618
Gresford disaster inquiry. The Secretary for Mines, Captain Crookshank, was interrupted by the voice of an honourable Member who said, "We shall never forget them". I hope that noble Lords will permit me at this moment, when first addressing your Lordships with the privilege of that name added to mine, to remember them as well.
I was an articled clerk in the firm of the coroner for east Denbighshire who carried out the inquest into the Gresford disaster. I learnt my civil procedure from the roots up. I shall not weary the House with my expertise in writs of fi. fa. and garnishee orders nisi. It was in personal injury litigation in an area of coal and steel and heavy industry that we made our living. We were concerned with broken limbs and broken spirits. We were concerned with the lives of ordinary people who were fighting nationalised industries and large institutions. I remember a man who lost eight fingers in a press. I remember another who damaged himself holding up a steel arch underground at Ifton colliery, a case which eventually went to the divisional court and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, who was on the other side. I am pleased to say that we won.
I recall with great amusement the case where I spent a fortnight working at a brief. I examined the cases and analysed the evidence in a way that would surprise some noble Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches. We were instructing Elwyn Jones QC, leading the tiger of the Chester Bar, Emlyn Hooson. I arrived in the antechamber at Chester Assizes as an articled clerk, to wait for a fortnight where I could listen to the masters at work, whereupon Elwyn Jones came breezing in saying, "Emlyn, Parliament sits tomorrow. We must settle this case". And settle it they did. I am sure that noble Lords remember the former Lord Chancellor with great affection, as I do. He invented fast track litigation. He had a keen sense of his priorities.
I need no persuading that the procedures of civil litigation need reform. I recall the case of a housing estate built on top of a hill above a Welsh town where the sewage works was overflowing, and every time it rained the sewage bubbled up from the manhole covers and landed in the living-room of my client. I came into the case shortly before the trial, 14 years after the proceedings had been commenced. In that time the house had been declared unfit for human habitation; his marriage had broken up; and he had had a nervous breakdown. It so happened that on the Saturday before the hearing I saw my opponent in the local rugby club and said to him: "You've no defence". He said, "I know. How much do you want?". That was the end of the case after some 14 years.
So far as the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is concerned, I was very pleased to receive a letter in July from the noble and learned Lord which contained the statement, "I hope that the report and the rules will contribute to the enjoyment of any holiday you are about to have". Let me assure the noble and learned Lord that it most certainly did. As I sat in the current with the sun warming my back and listened to the wind in the Scots pines above, I thought and mused idly on his Lordship's colour consciousness. I thought how fitting it was that we should have a "forest green" volume one, with a

619
"pine bark" volume two to follow, and what a shame it would be for me to open it and frighten the fish with the white interior.
The noble and learned Lord's report is monumental. It marks the end of lengthy and happy co-operation between members of the legal profession on all sides. I hope to see in the legislation that is passed support for the idea of a civil justice council, which would maintain that co-operation and make sure that the ongoing rules that are provided are acceptable to all sides.
The Bill itself is decidedly slim. It is a little disappointing, after seeing the report, to come upon this slim document. I was reminded, since it is election day in America today, of the slogan from some elections ago, which I offer freely to noble Lords on the Benches opposite to use against New Labour: "Where's the beef?". This Bill is perhaps a very small start to what will be a very considerable venture in reform.
The fast track procedure must not substitute discipline for justice. I know that that is not the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I was myself subject to his case management some three or four years ago. I did not realise that I was the pilot. As with all experiments, we stretched him to the limit and his patience and good humour survived that test—well, almost, anyway. The objectives of his report are admirable: to deal with cases justly and to have parties on an equal footing—to have equality of arms. To pay the noble and learned Lord the highest compliment, those objectives assort well with Liberal values.
My worry relates to matters lower down the scale: namely, that procedural rules could become instruments of bullying tactics. A country solicitor, such as I once was, can be faced with a distressed person who has no idea what the particular problem is. It is for the solicitor to identify the problem and put it into legal form. He has no control over the time it takes for expert reports to be received, for medical reports, for disclosure, for counsel to return the papers, for legal aid committees and so on. I am concerned that the disciplines that are laid down in the fast track procedure towards which the rules promulgated in the Bill will point will be used fairly, liberally and justly, as I know the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
The final matter I wish to raise is that of fixed costs. There is no change in the burden of proof. A solicitor will be as liable for negligence with the fast track procedure as he is at the present time. I am concerned that cost may reduce damages. I welcome the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to this matter and on the way in which he proposes to implement the report. I regret that there will be no debate on the Floor of this House on some of the principles that lie behind the report.
Large institutions can look after themselves; I am not concerned about them. They only fight about who pays, which is the issue between insurance companies and large companies. Courts, however, deal with people. Courts cannot always repair the damage to people's health and to their lives; nor can they right every perceived wrong. Even the litigant who fails must feel that he or she has been treated fairly and that the case has been heard and
620
has not been rushed. I am sure that that is the thrust of the noble and learned Lord's reforms. I welcome them, and I welcome the plain English in which they will be expressed. I thank noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they gave to me.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, it is a privilege that falls upon me to have the opportunity of conveying your Lordships' congratulations on an outstanding maiden speech. It covered the emotional beginnings of the noble Lord's life. It dealt wittily with his experiences on the Wales and Chester circuit and made a real contribution to the question that lies behind the Bill before the House; namely, the question of access to justice.
I hope that this will certainly not be the last opportunity that I shall have of hearing the views of the noble Lord on that subject. I know that the House will wish to hear him express the same oratory in relation to many other issues as well.
The contributions to the debate which have already been made today mean that my remarks can be brief. In making them, I am conscious that when I delivered another report, I exercised a self-denying ordinance and did not speak on the subject of prisons for over a year. I am conscious that some thought that even that period was too short. I am also conscious that your Lordships may feel that I would be wise to follow that example. However, I want to speak to your Lordships, first, because I wish to express the debt which I believe is owed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by all those who are concerned with the reputation of civil justice in this country. It was his vision that recognised the need for the system of civil justice to be fundamentally reformed. During the two-year period of my inquiry he gave me all the support and encouragement that I needed to produce my report.
The other reason I am glad to have this opportunity of making a few remarks is that I wish to commend the Bill very firmly to your Lordships. As was pointed out, it is admirably brief. It may lack beef, but it contrasts favourably with the 360 pages of my report which some took on holiday. Within its seven pages, it provides the means of achieving the reforms which I have recommended. It does so because it provides for a single new rule committee which can establish the simplified and streamlined procedures which are an essential part and which are at the heart of the reforms I recommend.
The production of the rules may seem a heavy responsibility for the new rule committee, but it has been the traditional responsibility of rules committees in the past. There is to be one rule committee in place of the two rule committees that now exist. That is hardly a radical proposal, as it was first recommended by the Judicature Commission of 1872. It is time that that recommendation was enshrined in the Bill.
The new rules are expressed in simple English so that they can be readily understood by a layman. That is a radical departure which is not easily achieved and I wholly approve of the requirement in Clause 2(5) that the rule committee should do its best to draft rules which are,
"both simple and simply expressed".

621
Under my proposals, instead of the existing bewildering choice of procedures for commencing proceedings, there will be but one. So far as possible, all procedures will be the same and in consequence the technical in-fighting over whether the right procedure has been selected, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, should become a thing of the past. Both the judiciary and the litigant will have for the first time a responsibility to conduct proceedings expeditiously and economically and in a way which will achieve equality between the parties. I emphasise that, because the draft rules place the responsibility both on the courts and on the parties.
In that respect, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said with regard to the need for co-operation. It is at the heart of my proposals that there should be co-operation. It was as a result of the co-operation which I received from both sides of the profession and from many others involved in the civil justice system that I was able to make my recommendations. They recommend protocols which are ways of dealing with cases appropriately which are drawn up with the agreement and consensus of those who are involved. The whole basis of the reforms requires consensus. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord has little to fear from the kind of confrontation to which he referred.
The reforms are a distinct package for change, but similar reforms have been or are being introduced in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, and they have also been introduced in parts of the United States. I appreciate that there may be differences of opinion as to detail, but in general there is consensus throughout the common law world that the direction which I recommended is the way in which we must all go.
Of course, additional resources are needed to introduce the reforms, but in due course they will more than pay for themselves. What we need to ask is whether we can afford to do without them. As a country with what is meant to be an enterprise economy, we cannot afford to have a justice system that does not work. An efficient justice system is important to the individual member of the public. Such people do not obtain justice if the system is one that they cannot afford.
The quality of the system is also important to the City, industry and commerce. It is important to the Legal Aid Fund which is paying out more and more in order to benefit an ever-reducing percentage of the population. It is important to the hospitals and local authorities which find that they are spending more and more of the resources which should be spent on treating patients or repairing houses to pay for excessively expensive litigation.
There are two concerns, however, which have been expressed to me as to the Bill. The first is one which has already been mentioned to your Lordships, as has the second. The first is whether the Bill enables representatives of the consumer bodies to be members of the proposed new rule committee. Clause 2(2)(g) refers to,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts".
As a result of my inquiry I can say, I hope without fear of contradiction from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that consumer bodies today have among their
622
staff many representatives who would be so qualified. I hope that, as appropriate, they would be represented on the new rule committee.
The second concern is the absence of any reference to a civil justice council, the creation of which I recommended. I see the council as a central plank to my recommendations. It will be the means of ensuring that a reformed civil justice system remains responsive to the needs of the public. It is also the necessary companion to a compact small rules committee. However, the creation of the council does not need statutory backing and I hope that I can persuade the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the importance of and the need for the council.
I therefore, for the reasons which I have outlined, give the Bill my unqualified support. It is a Bill which, while modest in size, could be a powerful engine for the reform which our civil justice system needs.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill. I believe that I speak as the only layman here today and assuredly the most nervous, certainly more nervous than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He made a splendid maiden speech and now I find that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose masterly report brought us here today.
The Bill is the instrument that will breathe life into the new rules and thus into the proposals of the noble and learned Lord. It takes forward not only the letter of the 1996 review but also the spirit as embodied in the statement on page 12. I shall not read it because in Clause 2(2)(g) of the Bill lay members are defined as,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts".
That is a point which has already been picked up and noted today by the noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Meston, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, himself. It is a broad term and I am unclear whether it means individuals from consumer and advice organisations, as the noble and learned Lord recommended. I would like clarification that "lay members", as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill, means what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, intended.
I welcome the requirement in Clause 2 that the rules should be both "simple and simply expressed". The charm of the mystery and history of the process of the law and its language, so beloved of many of its most celebrated practitioners, is often lost on those whose cases they are in practice to resolve. I believe it is important that all users of the courts should be able to comprehend the rules by which they are expected to abide.
There is to be a rule committee. There is to be one set of rules which will govern both the High Court and county court and, rather than a hugely detailed and complicated body of procedure, there will at last be a procedural code to further the overriding objective. The rule committee will be setting and amending rules. Some of those rules will be fairly routine but others could result in a considerable change of policy. Once those rules reach Parliament, there will be little chance of changing them. I

623
recommend that the rule committee consults with outside organisations about any significant changes to the rules which result in a significant change in policy.
The provision in relation to pre-action disclosure in Clause 7 gives courts power to require the parties in the dispute to make relevant documents available to one another before a legal action is started. That should encourage earlier settlements and a less adversarial approach to resolving disputes. I welcome that; in fact, there is much to welcome for the consumer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, tells us that the legal profession also welcomes the Bill. Perhaps some noble and learned Lords—and no doubt my son, if I had asked him, and his fellow barristers—have concerns about case management by the courts. Will judges be given time to read papers beforehand? Will there be sufficient training? Will improving the process still maintain the quality of the outcome? And the great worry for a barrister like my son and his young colleagues is whether work will be lost.
Those are genuine concerns with which we—especially me—sympathise. Those worries stem from a genuine concern. Court procedures must not change just to save money or for fashionable change's sake. I believe we all agree that the civil justice system needs to change. It often fails ordinary people because it is slow, expensive and incomprehensible. Ordinary people turn to it to sort out family matters, personal injuries, debt problems, housing problems—often things that deeply affect their lives.
The proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, represent to the consumer a real hope of change. Of course, case management by the courts will not spring full blown from the head of Zeus. It will be an evolutionary process, with all of the key players having to contribute to that evolution. I am told that in some courts the first cautious steps are already being taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made plain to us his enthusiasm for the reforms and his plans to continue the momentum to implement them in careful stages, with monitoring and evaluation of their impact. On the consumer side the proposals were warmly welcomed by the National Consumer Council and many other consumer bodies which were consulted along the way. From their viewpoint it is not only the letter but also the spirit of the proposals which must be retained. That is why I urge that one key element of the Bill is particularly carefully implemented. In his final report, at page 273, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wrote:
"To help carry forward the work … I set up a small working group … To my knowledge, this is the first time on which representatives of consumer and advice organisations have been directly involved in the preparation of rules of court. I recommend that they should have a permanent role as a counterbalance to the professional legal viewpoint in the new rule-making committee which will be needed to enact the combined rules".
I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be visionary: to follow up the successful experiment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with an Act which gives permanent places on the committee to a representative from the lay advice sector and a
624
representative from consumer groups. We all have much to gain from the change. Let us not be afraid to make it. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am deeply conscious from my place in the speakers' list that my position is that of a long stop—and I do not propose that your Lordships should stop very long!
I should like to add my congratulations to those already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Indirectly he has already made a considerable contribution to the work of this House. It was his letter of resignation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, explaining that he was resigning in relation to the proposed tariff scheme which the Home Secretary—as was subsequently found—intended unlawfully to impose that gave rise to the debates in this House and subsequently led to the whole of that proposal being quashed.
I want to take up one point essentially which relates to resources. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
"The Bill paves the way for implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report by Lord Woolf to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales".
It goes on to say, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill",
"The Bill is not expected to have any significant financial implications".
That is right. But the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will have "significant financial implications".
There has been reference to the fact that judicial case management is already in existence. But that is largely on a quite different level to that being contemplated. The commercial judge is a specialist in his field. In all likelihood he has been a successful commercial silk at the Bar and his ability to case manage is in-built as a result of his own special circumstances. That applies to other fields in the High Court.
However, what is proposed is that the judicial case management shall be carried out by the lowest rung of the professional judge; that is, the district judge. He does an immense amount of good work in the county court and sits there as an arbitrator doing valuable work on small claims recovery. But he is not experienced in the cut and thrust of litigation. He is rarely a member of the Bar—I do not say that in any critical sense but as an indication that to a large extent his experience is the office experience of an experienced solicitor. Therefore, considerable resources will have to be provided for his training.
The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, as to whether there would be any need for an increase in judicial power. I believe that it is inevitable that there will have to be a sizeable one. First, the district judge will need time to read up the papers, to understand them. He cannot manage a case unless he fully understands the implications. If he arrives at a directions meeting not having fully considered the material in the case, the odds are that he will be merely accepting what the parties propose and we shall be back to square one. Secondly,

625
among the district judges there will inevitably be those who say, "This is not a field of work with which I find I can happily cope"; so that will involve an increase in judicial appointments. There is also the point that has been raised in the more complex cases of the "law clerks" system being imported from America. That will provide the judge with the assistance of an outstanding law graduate of his year and will again be an expensive matter.
I urge the Lord Chancellor to give us the assurance that the admirable work done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will not run the risk of failing to produce expectations which everyone has by reason of being deprived of resources.
I wish to raise one other matter on education. It relates to the legal profession. In the three or fours years since I retired I have been involved in arbitrations. Arbitrations are the type of alternative dispute resolution where one would expect settlement to be utmost in the minds of those involved. In my experience, settlement is usually the result of a halfway interim award or maybe the result of the parties hearing the conclusion of cross-examination and submissions. Yet because of the adversarial culture, it takes a quite unnecessary length of time for the idea of settlement to become the focus of the advisers to the parties and the parties themselves.
One does not have the benefit of seeing the pre-trial correspondence in any great detail as the trial judge or even the appellate judge. The strength of feeling to be found in pre-trial correspondence between experienced, sensible solicitors in charge of the dispute on both sides is quite startling. They churn out letters which are offensive to each other; in many cases they build up their practices on competing aggressiveness; copies are sent to the lay clients, who apparently enjoy it; and as a result the expectation among the lay clients is that there will be one hell of a battle and their representative will be the champion who wins. All of this has to be de-escalated down without grossly disappointing the lay client in order to obtain his agreement to settlement. The burden usually falls on the arbitrator or the trial judge to try to bring reality onto the scenes.
All that is quite wrong. If the culture changed so that the advisers basically said to the litigants on each side, "Look, usually the best solution to disputes is to achieve a sensible settlement. The best way of achieving a sensible settlement is for me to write a sensible letter to the other side, not full of aggressiveness but full of reason, and to encourage the other side so to respond. So don't be disappointed if you see a letter of sweet reason. It does not mean that I am not ready to fight with enthusiasm if we come to court. But until that event occurs, let me make the best possible attempts to settle your case". We are far from reaching that situation. That is where the education of future judges in case management should be supplemented by education by the professional bodies of their own members with a view to seeing whether disputes cannot be dealt with very much more quickly by achieving the settlement which is usually appropriate in 95 per cent. of cases.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it has been a relatively short debate of characteristically high quality. I am delighted to have been present to hear the moving, personal, modest, thoughtful and charming maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. Apart from his prominent political life, he has had a distinguished career at the Criminal Bar and as a part-time judge. This afternoon he has ventured into the tangled thickets of our antiquated and outmoded civil procedures, whether coloured forest green or pine yellow. He will, I am sure, make an important contribution to the work of the House.
It is also a particular pleasure and privilege to speak in the same debate as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. If I may say so as a practising member of the English Bar, I believe that future legal historians will agree that one of the Lord Chancellor's greatest contributions has been the excellence of his judicial appointments. Another, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated, has been the Lord Chancellor's measures to modernise our system of civil justice and to reform the antiquated and unnecessarily restrictive practices of the legal profession—in the early stages, in the teeth of some not altogether pleasant opposition from some quarters of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has described as the Legal Establishment.
The Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House in providing the framework to give effect to the enlightened and radical proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to improve access to justice. Every noble Lord who has spoken supports the proposal for a simplified set of procedural rules for all procedures in all courts and for the creation of one rule committee to replace the present two. A single set of simplified rules should help to reduce the cost of litigation, facilitate amicable settlements and encourage the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution. It should also avoid undue legalism, technicality and the kind of abusive tactical misuse of procedure described by my noble friend Lord Meston.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, supports the cultural change sought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, though I am a little less optimistic than he is about persuading some of our fellow advocates not to be prolix or verbose in the absence of firm and effective judicial management, if that is not a euphemism, of the kind given by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Would that all judges could give that kind of leadership. But of course they cannot.
I am not troubled by the parliamentary delegation of rulemaking to a broad-based rule committee, provided that there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, indicated, extensive consultation about the draft rules, as there has undoubtedly been in the course of the review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and provided that both Houses of Parliament have a proper chance to debate the important issues at stake. That is why, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I believe that the new set of rules should require parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution rather than by negative resolution.

627
Recently, a senior and distinguished fellow member of the Bar with vast experience of civil litigation, Mr. Anthony Grabiner QC, rightly observed in a lecture on this subject that the White Book, as we call it, is badly in need of abandonment and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his team are to be congratulated on producing a set of draft rules written in plain English. Great efforts will, as he says, no doubt be made to turn simplicity into unnecessary complication. We have to hope and expect that the judiciary will develop a tough stand against efforts of that kind.
The suggested membership of the new rule committee will need to be carefully considered at Committee stage. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the only lay members at present envisaged are two persons,
"with knowledge of the workings of the courts".
It is important to include those with knowledge of the interests of the consumers of the civil justice system, such as those working in citizens' advice bureaux and law centres. Civil rules of procedure are not like the rules of a private social club. They have a direct and profound impact upon the ability of ordinary men and women to enjoy effective access to justice. One objective clearly spelled out in the Woolf Report is for the civil justice system to be responsive to the needs of litigants. As the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness Lady Wilcox have both said, consumer interest groups make a vital contribution and need to be effectively represented on the rule committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is the only speaker who is neither a judge nor a lawyer. Her voice of justice and common sense is particularly welcome, for she speaks for the consumer that the system is meant to serve.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am disappointed that the Bill does not provide for the establishment of a civil justice council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has given cogent and compelling reasons in both of his reports for creating a continuing body with responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of his proposals. In his words, it is "the central plank". The council would be an important engine of reform, encouraging the momentum to continue and representing the many and varied participants in the system. It would provide a vital channel of communication both ways between the centre and the regions and local areas.
In his written response, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that consultation and collaboration are vital to the success of the project, and the need to ensure that all interested parties are given a voice in the implementation process. But he observed that he was "not yet satisfied" that a civil justice council is the most effective way of securing these objectives. I take comfort from the words "not yet" and very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will become satisfied during the debates on the Bill that a civil justice council would not be an unwieldy or ineffectual forum.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, observed in his interim report, a co--ordinating body for civil justice would greatly assist the Lord Chancellor's Department. In
628
the absence of such a body, previous initiatives, such as the Civil Justice Review, have not been fully implemented or have not been implemented in the most effective way. He points out that the civil justice council could also take on a broader role in establishing a higher profile for civil justice by helping to secure the necessary resources and keeping the wider issues in the public mind. I would hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would want to bequeath to his successor such a useful body, which would, among other things, be able to help his department to squeeze much-needed resources for civil justice out of the Treasury.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, my noble friend Lord Meston and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that adequate resources are quite indispensable to the success of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and not only to finance the transition. In his written response the Lord Chancellor referred to the new procedures as being,
"intended to result in a more efficient management of the civil justice system, reducing costs to the litigant and to the public purse".
That is true, of course, but it is also true that more resources will need to be paid for out of the public purse if there is to be genuinely effective access to a speedy and efficient system of civil justice.
There will need to be more judges, assisted, I would hope, at least at the appellate level, by law clerks in their out-of-court preparation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has emphasised, the judges will need to be trained in their new role in case management. They will need more time for preparation. Existing costs obstacles in the way of equal access for the poor and not-so-rich will have to be removed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended that as part of the review of court fees the position of a litigant of modest means should be protected from the undue impact of increased court fees. I respectfully agree. He also made the important recommendation that in judicial review proceedings the court should have a discretion to order costs to be paid out of public funds where the proceedings have been brought in the public interest. Something similar was recommended more than 40 years' ago by Lord Evershed's committee. It is of great importance that an applicant for judicial review, not legally aided but too poor to be able to risk paying the costs of the respondent public body, should know at the outset that his or her costs will be publicly funded or at least that he or she will not be ordered to pay the respondent's costs. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts these recommendations to avoid what he has rightly described as the deterrent effect of the present costs position.
I also hope that the Lord Chancellor will extend the no-win, no-fee scheme under the conditional fees rules to cover cases where litigants are exhausting domestic legal remedies before having recourse under the European Convention on Human Rights; indeed, I would add in judicial review and civil proceedings generally. That will involve no charge upon the public purse. As in Scotland, under the speculative fee arrangements, it will enable public-spirited lawyers to act without fee in public interest litigation. It will also make it much easier to obtain insurance against liability for the other side's legal costs.

629
That brings me finally to the Government's plans to shake up legal aid, condemned by leading national organisations representing advice agencies and groups helping victims of injustice as unworkable and unjust. I believe it to be short-sighted, even in terms of savings in public expenditure, to cut back so severely on eligibility for legal aid in civil cases. It leads inevitably to litigants having to represent themselves in person, clogging the system and wasting scarce resources with inexpertly prepared and verbosely argued cases. The withdrawal of civil legal aid from so many needy claimants also infringes the basic civil right to effective access to justice.
I read with interest the article by Mr. Phillip Sycamore, Vice-President of the Law Society, in The Times today arguing on the basis of two recent independent research studies that there is overwhelming public support for legal aid and highlighting public opposition to the proposals in the Government's White Paper. I do not favour a demand-led system of indiscriminate legal aid; but neither do I favour its undue restriction.
Some 28 years ago, as a member of the Society of Labour Lawyers, I was one of a group that helped the late and much-missed Morris Finer QC, as he was, to write a report entitled Justice for All. We identified a substantial unmet need for professional legal services. We found that:
"Poverty, ignorance, fatalism and fear, in combination with the present structure of the legal profession, result in the denial of legal services to many people, and especially to those living on low incomes in parts of our largest cities".
We recommended a new institution, capable of bringing high quality legal services to those parts of our cities where the need for them is greatest and attracting men and women of ability to the service of the community. Such an institution, we thought, would function as a public service, staffed by salaried lawyers, co-existing with the private legal profession.
Under Labour Governments in the late 1960s and mid-1970s, there was an expansion, with government encouragement, of the network of voluntary local law centres. Unfortunately, however, the proposal for a publicly-funded network of centres employing a salaried professional staff has not been implemented.
I believe that the need for such a service is greater today than it was in 1968. I remain convinced that it will provide a cost-effective, well targeted way of promoting greater access to civil justice for the underprivileged and of securing greater justice for all. I hope that the present Bill will be implemented not only by better rules and better managed cases but also by better use of public funding to achieve greater equality of access. Otherwise, it will be only a half-measure for reform.
5.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin by adding my warm appreciation of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He brought us back to very sad matters in the mining industry. He brought us forward to the very fast track when Lord Elwyn-Jones arrived at Chester in company with his learned junior to settle the case immediately. He then brought us on to a 14-year litigation which the noble Lord settled on a social
630
occasion on a Saturday afternoon. That shows the variety of experiences that one can have under our present system.
I am grateful for the degree of support that has been given to the Bill. I am not at all apologetic for the fact that it is rather short because I think that if my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale were to participate in the debate, he would be in favour of the shortest possible legislation. This legislation incorporates all that is required to bring forward the scheme of reform which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf and those who have devotedly supported him have produced in the two reports to which I referred earlier.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for agreeing that it would be appropriate to deal with this Bill in a Moses Room Committee of the Whole House off the Floor. That in no way inhibits discussion. Indeed, if anything, I think that it makes it possible to have perhaps more time for discussion than would otherwise be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked me to preserve an open mind on amendments. I think that I always have an open mind on amendments because I am anxious to secure agreement where possible on this and on every other topic that I try to bring forward. Sometimes I secure that agreement with more success than at others.
On the civil justice council, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has proposed, but I do not think that we can get into that just yet. One of the functions of the council would be to ensure that affairs of civil justice remained prominent into the future. The profile of civil justice has been raised considerably and will continue to be raised while the new rules are being prepared and consulted on. I entirely agree that it is right to have the widest possible consultation on these rules. My noble and learned friend has carried out a lot of consultation already and I expect that many of the views that have been expressed will be taken into account by the rule committee when formulating the rules.
I think that that is highly desirable, although I doubt whether it is wise to include such particular conditions in the Bill. I have some experience—your Lordships may have more—of cases where quite small changes in the rules are required urgently in the light of experience in a particular case. We need flexible arrangements and I would be prepared—I hope that your Lordships would be similarly prepared—to trust to the judgment of the rule committee on the nature of the consultation that it would require in any particular case.
That brings me to a point of some importance which we shall have to discuss in Committee. I think that the ordinary rule should be, as the Bill proposes, that rules of court can be set aside as a result of prayer under the negative procedure. I agree, of course, that the main change is a big one. We shall have to see whether there is some way of dealing with that. I would be perfectly prepared to undertake that, once the rules are formulated, it would be appropriate to have a debate on their detail in this House—obviously I am not clear about the other place—before the instrument that would bring them into effect could be laid. In any event, we can discuss such matters in Committee.

631
I strongly agree with the view that co-operation is at the heart of this whole procedure, including co-operation between judge and counsel in particular cases. I agree that it is difficult to make progress if the judge is so sure of what he thinks that he is not prepared to listen to advice from a well directed quarter. On the other hand, such obstinacy is not confined to the Bench. The need for co-operation is general. I am sure that such co-operation oils the wheels of any procedural system. I hope and believe that a keynote of the rules will be that such co-operation is sought.
The question of resources has also been raised. There is no doubt that resources will be required to put the system in place. Training and information technology are the most important and most easily identified areas that will need resourcing. Whether or not more judges are required is still an open question. It may well be that a different type of judge is required and that to accommodate that we may have to vary the way in which judges are recruited. I am considering that matter. On information technology, we have already placed an important contract for the computerisation of the civil courts. That is an important part of our preparation.
That reminds me that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, suggested that the recommendations of previous inquiries have not been implemented. The implementation of the civil justice review is not yet finished. I am trying to take it forward as rapidly as I can. One of the results of that review was the inquiry by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. It was recognised that a single set of rules for all the civil courts was necessary. Until we get that, we cannot have full implementation. Of course, we have done a great deal already, but some of the recommendations (on administration orders, for example) require information technology which we are only just getting. I have certainly done what I can to bring forward as rapidly as possible the implementation of the proposals of the civil justice review.
The second area in which resources will be needed is judicial training. I intend that the budget of the Judicial Studies Board will contain the necessary money for that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked what I was going to squeeze to get that money and whether there would be any "new money". I do not understand the phrase "new money" in connection with another year. If you want something extra during any one year, that requires new money in addition to the budget for that year. However, the budgets for the next year, for the following year and for the year after that are determined as we go along. The resources that will be necessary properly to implement the proposals will be part of the budget of the Lord Chancellor. If it turns out that more judges are required, that will have to be accommodated, but one of the objectives of the system is to make the new system rather cheaper than the present one. Therefore, I do not see it as established at the moment that a higher judicial complement will be required. The resources necessary for
632
implementation will be made available out of the Lord Chancellor's budget and we shall become clearer about what exactly is required from year to year as we go along.
A number of other matters have been mentioned which will be taken up in Committee. It is said that I focused particularly on transitional costs. I would expect additional costs to arise in the transitional period because running the old system while preparing for the new is bound to give rise to some additional costs. We shall have to deal with such costs in the way I have suggested. The IT costs are part of the costs of the system that we seek to put in place.
I am glad that we now have systems for discussing these matters in considerable detail with the senior judiciary. I believe that that will be helpful in discovering how best to use the resources that are made available to help in this matter. One illustration of that possibility is that the Judicial Studies Board works through various programmes and sometimes a particular programme is no longer necessary. There has been a substantial programme dealing with ethnic minority issues. It may be that now the full effect of that is in place resources can be used on other matters. Judicial studies vary from year to year.
I fully agree with all that has been said about training. Training is absolutely essential for this to work. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that that is also true in connection with the legal profession. I am interested in what he has discovered in correspondence in arbitrations since retirement which throws light on the way in which some of these matters are handled.
One of the matters proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf is the adoption of protocols as to how disputes should be treated. That may well help to deal with the problems indicated by my noble and learned friend. Obviously, if it is to work the idea must be to try to reduce the area of dispute as far as possible, whereas the kind of correspondence to which my noble and learned friend has referred so eloquently is calculated to exacerbate, enlarge and make a dispute more terrible than when it first began. That is quite counter to the objectives of my noble and learned friend.
In accordance with the agreement that I believe has been signified, the Committee stage will be taken in the Moses Room, with no votes at that stage. Of course, any outstanding matters that cannot be settled by agreement will be subject to votes at Report stage in the ordinary way. My noble friend gives me a signal which I am not absolutely certain I understand. I am anxious that the amount of debate at Committee stage is reduced by agreement to the absolute maximum. I am sure that that can only be good for the resulting Bill.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I renew my Motion with reasonable confidence.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.