Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bew (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 29 January 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2009.


Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2009

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument, which, in effect, applies the financial restrictions proceedings provisions of Part 6 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to Northern Ireland. As a supporter of that Act, I welcome the logical extension of its remits. However, we are dealing with counterterrorist legislation. It is always a delicate matter, and it is necessary to tread a little carefully. In particular, we should acknowledge that we are in a sense creating a new form of jurisdiction here. In the other place, the Minister conceded in the delegated legislation committee that there had perhaps been slightly less consultation on this matter in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. In particular, I am not aware that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was consulted. However, I am very relieved that, as the Minister has already stated, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who had a particular problem with the Government’s proposals, is now happy with what we have before us. That is important and reassuring. There remain perhaps only two loose ends in rather a complicated piece of legislation. One relates to the special advocates, which the Minister has discussed carefully this evening. As is clear from his remarks, the special advocates will have access to sensitive intelligence material. An issue arises as to the quality of the vetting that special advocates will receive. That is why the Government have said that they will be subject to the same vetting as civil servants, with one or two procedural differences that are appropriate to their professions. Can the Minister say whether this is a genuinely high level of clearance? It follows logically from his earlier remarks that it must be, given the sensitive material to which special advocates are likely to have access. Secondly and finally, it is well known that Northern Ireland terrorists of all shades employ corporate vehicles, small and medium-sized enterprise fronts, as cover for smuggling, protection and drug rackets. It has caused some surprise that these rules at this point do not seem explicitly to apply to SMEs or incorporated vehicles. Can the Minister offer clarification on that?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c433-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Appeals Courts Assets Civil proceedings Advocacy Fees and charges Documents Legal costs Northern Ireland Public interest Vetting Terrorism Small businesses Supreme Court Rules of procedure High Court Small claims Special advocates Freezing of assets
Legislation
Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 3) 2008
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2008
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk