I am not a particular fan of the upper house in Parliament, being as it is populated by unelected peers, 70% of which have a party affiliation and thus take the whip in most cases. Nevertheless, when it is they upon whom we must rely for a sensible approach to legal reform, I wonder what on earth we did to deserve this situation.
This week, after the eight defeat on the legal aid bill in the house of lords a source close to Ken Clarkes responded by saying: "It's yet another example of Labour peers behaving like they're in the Greek parliament, not the House of Lords." This is wrong and its not Labour.
Today peers will vote on amendments that will decide the future of the legal aid budget for over 645,000 women, children, families, pensioners and citizens in England and Wales. Sound off for Justice and the group campaigning against the bill all recognise that we must save the taxpayer money. This has never been and issue and we know how to save £40 million more than the government. What is in contention is how we do this and what is 'fair and reasonable'?