Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 5) Rules 2013

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Bew

Monday 29th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I will speak only to the Northern Ireland section of the Motions before the House tonight. I will ask the Minister two questions in the spirit of the remarks that have been made, particularly by my noble friend Lord Pannick, not in opposition in principle to the Minister’s proposals this evening but with a sense that we ought to proceed with great care, caution and circumspection in what is undoubtedly a significant change.

The Minister, in his introductory remarks, referred to consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and I was delighted to hear that. However, there is also a question in my mind as to whether there was any consultation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, either by the Lord Chief Justice or through the Lord Chancellor’s office, and just how wide that consultation actually went in Northern Ireland.

My second question very specifically relates to the special advocates, and to vetting procedures for special advocates in Northern Ireland, where I think it is a more difficult matter perhaps than in the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 3) came before this House at the end of January 2009, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who was then the Minister, about the vetting of special advocates in Northern Ireland. He replied that there was a high level of vetting. He referred to credit checks, checks on criminal convictions and so on—similar to those for a civil servant. The documents that I have received so far, either in that case or in the case of the Motions before the House tonight, refer not at all to the special advocates and the level of vetting. I just want reassurance that it is still regarded as a high level of vetting, given the sensitivity of the matters, which inevitably come under the purview of the special advocates, and I ask whether, in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland, that level of vetting is, in fact, sufficiently high.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I will make one brief comment. I start by commending my noble and learned friend the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this extremely complex set of issues and for the way in which he opened the debate tonight. It is commonplace to observe that closed material procedures touch on matters as sensitive, in terms of the fundamentals of our system, as anyone can imagine. Having heard the extremely thoughtful contributions of fellow Peers tonight, it occurs to me that, if it were at all possible, it would be advisable—if I can put it that way to the Minister—to take away the issues that have been raised here tonight rather than push them through.

There are only a dozen of us in the House at this time. We have heard some extremely thought-provoking points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the five Neuberger principles—if I may call them that—which all require, I think, considerable further thought. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, raised the issue of potential vetting, so to speak, of applications by the Attorney-General of the day. I hope my noble friend the Minister will not have any fear of going against precedent if he considers it advisable to postpone passing these rules tonight so that the matter can be further considered and brought back immediately after the Recess, because the issues could scarcely be more important.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Bew

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I shall talk briefly to Amendment 2B and, in so doing, I echo what has been said about my noble friend Lord McNally. I do not know about McNally’s Bill but I certainly knew a Bill McNally, who was one of the finest poachers in Suffolk.

I am not happy with Amendment 2C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, but I have a lot of time for her Amendment 2D, supported by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. As was said by my noble friend, there seems to be considerable anxiety around the bullying of corporations, which seems to get worse as time goes by. Some of the largest and wickedest of them are some of the most brutal in the way that they will abuse the law to silence critics.

I want to raise with my noble friend Lord McNally a point on Amendment 2B because this is potentially a Pepper v Hart occasion, where he could say in the most trenchant terms that my concern is misplaced. The amendment enlarges on Clause 1 of the Bill, headed “Serious harm”. It says:

“For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit”.

I am not absolutely clear that the phrase,

“a body that trades for profit”,

is beyond ambiguity. I am thinking particularly of charities, some of which trade for profit in the mainstream of the work that they do—for example, some schools, some hospitals and gymnasia. There are many areas where charities carry on a trade, but it is a charitable trade and it is, in one obvious and simple sense, for profit because it generates the wherewithal enabling them to run their hospital or whatever it is. I could have chosen language, I think, that would put the meaning beyond doubt, but we have to live with the wording that is here. As I understand it, there is no further opportunity to change the phrasing of this part of Amendment 2B. So I hope that my noble friend Lord McNally will assure me that this wording is specifically designed to exclude from its ambit the work of charities. Otherwise, I think we have a very large problem with this amendment.

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 2C. However, I feel I have to respond immediately to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which I have to say, on behalf of Northern Ireland as a region, makes me feel very uneasy.

The point about this Bill is that it is not just about enhancing press freedom but about public debate more generally, including academic freedom. I find it very disturbing that the region of the United Kingdom from which I come is opting for a more restrictive type of public debate and deciding not to engage in the wider freedoms that will now be available for public expression in the United Kingdom more generally. I find that is almost a self-mutilating act. The only thing I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that I hope over time—but not too much time—the Northern Ireland Assembly will rethink its position. It was a position taken up when the tsunami of Leveson was sweeping over this Bill and it was not at all sure that this Bill would pass. It was a very surprising statement even in its timing. The best resolution of that would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to reconsider, because innumerous anomalies will otherwise be created as regards the circulation of British media—not just newspapers but organs like the New Statesman and the Spectator—in Northern Ireland unless there is a rethink. I hope that there will be a rethink because otherwise it would leave us in a very unsatisfactory situation. It might be helpful in promoting that rethink if the leaderships of the parties in this House all indicated their unease with the situation in Northern Ireland. This Bill has all-party support and it might be useful to indicate a certain unease with the situation that we are facing.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Bew

Thursday 17th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and to say that he has accurately recalled the discussion and the feeling of the Joint Committee. My sense is that we actually did get differing evidence. For example, I seem to recall that the Master of the Rolls was sceptical about extending privilege to academic conferences for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has given us. On the other hand, we had a former Lord Chancellor, for example, who took the view that it was right to extend privilege. So there was a genuine difference of evidence from significant people. We were certainly much keener to protect peer-reviewed journals than we were to offer a new measure of protection for conferences for the simple reason that all of us who are academics have attended conferences that we are not sure would deserve this privilege. The Government may well have things to say to expand their thinking to produce a more enthusiastic response—on my part, at any rate. However, it is worth saying that they were somewhat cagey on this matter.

Perhaps I may say very briefly, referring to the privilege matters discussed and to what is about to come, as the one person who was a member of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and of the Joint Committee on the Defamation Bill, that I am finding the discussion so far extremely helpful, I expect to find further discussions even more helpful, and I am learning a lot.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Given the noble Lord’s deep involvement in this issue, I understand what he is saying about the amendment proposed. However, is he not very concerned, along the same lines, by the provisions of Clause 7(5), which would allow,

“a press conference held anywhere in the world for the discussion of a matter of public interest”,

to have qualified privilege? It seems to me that you would be in the bizarre position of having a conference to which qualified privilege did not apply, but the press conference after the conference would be the subject of qualified privilege.

[Lord Bew]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, one that I was actually aware of. While I fully understand the ambiguity to which he referred, the reason why I am more open to the provision as it stands for press conferences is that in recent time we have had, to my knowledge, at least one celebrated case where a particular government department gave a press conference and people subsequently wrote perfectly legitimate articles on the basis of what was said by that department but none the less, the case went to court and substantial payments were made.

I cannot bring myself to say that it is reasonable that if a department of government holds a press conference and people actively report or elucidate on what is said there, there should subsequently be libel actions, which there have been in recent times. That is the reason why at the moment I am living with the press conference issue.

I am open to persuasion on this question of conferences, but those of us on the Select Committee want to know that the Government have thought enough about the fact that some academic conferences are not very well run and are somewhat chaotic, and that they have some way of thinking that responds to that. A fundamental thinking of our committee was that the deepest problem is that academics, in the sciences or in the humanities, can be driven by their research to certain conclusions, and at this point there is a chill point that means they would discover it was difficult to find an academic outlet because a journal might say, “Our budget is so small that if there is a libel action here, even though your research looks very interesting to us, we can’t possibly publish it”. We know that this is currently going on, and that seems to be the greatest single evil in this field that needs to be addressed. I feel less concerned in principle about defending the rights of someone who may be spouting off a little at a conference.