For the noble Lord, of course I can do better than that. Although there may well be an election fairly soon—I do not know—Ministers continue to be Ministers until the results are known, as I understand it. There is therefore time for us to meet, if that is what he would like. He may think that that would be better after the election; no doubt he can discuss that with those to whom he has been talking. I can give him those promises; I hope that they help. I know how strongly he feels about the issue; he graphically explained why. I have to say that the Government—any Government would say the same—have to be incredibly careful about curtailing press freedom in any way. I might well share some of his views about how some of the press conduct themselves, but I have to resist—we all do—the temptation sometimes to say, "Gosh, I wish they weren’t allowed to do this or that". Saying that is extremely serious for any Government; we are wary of laws to curtail any press freedom at all.
I say to the House—that is the proper way of doing it, but I hope that the noble Lord takes note—that of course I am prepared to make the concessions to his argument of review after 12 months and consultation. The CFA order is an interim order; it is not the solution to the problem of libel law in this country, but it is the best thing to do at this stage. Why the hurry? First, there is a crisis in both these fields. Secondly, there is an upcoming general election and we feel that we would have to try to deal with a crisis straight away rather than wait, as we would have to otherwise once purdah began. Let me be blunt about that—those are the reasons why these matters come before the House today.
I could answer many questions, but I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment. I hope that what I have had to say in my brief response is sufficient to persuade the House to accept the statutory instruments, if it comes to voting on whether they go through. They are yet to be discussed in another place and there is urgency about this. We think that they are the right statutory instruments and I hope that the House will support them.
Motion agreed.
Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 25 March 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c1176-7 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:46:42 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634529
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634529
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634529