Despite its pledge to begin its third term with a bang, little of substance has emerged from the Government’s welter of bills. John Ludlow casts a critical eye over what the profession can expect to see on the statute book

After 5 May, there was much speculation in the press about how Labour would ‘hit the ground running’ at the start of its third term. This would be a return to the frantic days of 1997 and 1998, when so much was done so quickly, and a slap in the face to all those critics who said the government had run out of steam. But while this is certainly a packed session – with a record number of Bills – it does not feel like a major reform programme and there is little real momentum.


Most Bills are still moving relatively slowly. The Identity Cards Bill may have been published quickly after the election, but ministers seem to be in no hurry to see it debated. According to Geoff Hoon, the new Leader of the Commons, this is because Home Secretary Charles Clarke is ‘keen to hold extensive consultations and discussions with… members from both sides of the House before the Bill is read a second time’. If so, this ought to bode well for concessions, though few critics of the measure are holding their breath.


In fairness, some Bills will be having their second readings in the next few weeks, though few will progress much further before the long summer recess. On 20 June, the flagship Violent Crime Reduction Bill will be debated. This measure will target the sale of knives and replica guns to teenagers, as well as introducing alcohol disorder zones and drinking banning orders. Despite all the new initiatives and acronyms, it is likely to be broadly uncontroversial.


The same cannot be said for the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, however, which is scheduled to receive its second reading the following day. With some opponents claiming that it will protect Satanists and pagans, and others claiming it will prohibit satirical comment, there is a danger here that debate on this tiny, well-intentioned measure will end in high farce. True, ministers will be able to use the Parliament Acts to force it through if necessary, but the reality is that they will still have to win the argument if it is to have public support.


The day after that we are scheduled to see the first Lords debate of the Fraud Bill, with its new three-pronged definition of the offence. However, of more interest to many observers will be the forthcoming vote on the abolition of juries in serious fraud cases. Perhaps confusingly, this is not part of the Fraud Bill at all, but is rather a power contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 43 of that Act requires an affirmative resolution of each House for the change, and many organisations – including the Law Society – will be briefing against the government on this important issue.


The Criminal Defence Service Bill is also about to have its second reading in the Lords, a stage it failed to reach in the last session. Few would oppose the basic premise of the Bill, which is that those defendants who can afford to pay their legal costs should do so, though there are many areas that require further clarification in this skeletal Bill. The Law Society will be seeking several commitments as this Bill progresses, not least that any monies saved by the reform should be transferred to the civil legal aid budget.


One or two Bills are also moving beyond second reading into committee, though in truth only those that were reintroduced after falling last session, such as the Charities Bill and the Equality Bill. Also making good progress is the Finance Bill, which contains the more controversial elements of the last budget statement and which may well complete its passage before the summer recess.


On the surprise Compensation Bill, there is no further news, except that the prime minister has stated his personal commitment to the measure (See Comment). In a recent speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, he explained that the Bill would ‘clarify the existing common law… to make clear that there is no liability in negligence for untoward incidents that could not be avoided by taking reasonable care or exercising reasonable skill’. This has left many practitioners scratching their heads as to why such a ‘clarification’ is needed, though we may be more enlightened when the Bill is published.


Of course, the relatively slow progress of Bills is not a problem for ministers. They have until November 2006 to see their measures on to the statute books. In fact, they will probably find the space for one or two more along the way.


But for those who expected some kind of race, it appears that the starting pistol has not yet been fired.


John Ludlow is head of the Law Society’s parliamentary unit