← Back to House of Commons Debates
Civil Justice Bill - Clause 4
07 February 2023
Lead MP
Alice Smith
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 24
At a Glance
Alice Smith raised concerns about civil justice bill - clause 4 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I propose this amendment to Clause 4, which seeks to streamline the process for resolving civil disputes by introducing a mandatory mediation stage before any court action can be initiated. This change aims to reduce costs and delays in the legal system while ensuring that parties have every opportunity to settle their differences amicably. According to our estimates, this could lead to a reduction of up to 30% in court cases over five years. Furthermore, it aligns with recent recommendations from the Civil Justice Council on alternative dispute resolution strategies.
Bob Jones
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
I strongly support Alice Smith's amendment as it reflects the needs of my constituents who often face lengthy and costly legal battles. The introduction of mandatory mediation will not only alleviate financial burdens on families but also promote a culture of resolution over litigation.
Carol White
Con
Wolverhampton South East
While I recognise the intention behind this amendment, there are significant concerns regarding its practicality. Many disputes are too complex for mediation and require immediate court intervention to prevent injustice or further loss.
David Brown
Lib Dem
Edinburgh South
This initiative is crucial in modernising our legal framework. Countries like Australia have seen remarkable success with similar provisions, reducing court backlogs and fostering more efficient dispute resolution mechanisms.
Eve Taylor
Lab
Nottingham East
The amendment addresses a pressing need in my constituency where small businesses often struggle due to protracted legal disputes. A mandatory mediation stage would provide a quicker and more cost-effective resolution pathway.
Munira Wilson
Lib Dem
Twickenham
The Liberal Democrat MP questions whether supporting the statutory tort risks inhibiting free speech. She argues that cash-strapped student unions may not invite particular speakers for fear of potential legal proceedings they cannot defend, implying a chilling effect on free expression.
The MP explains that the problem with the tort clause is its application to student unions and associations, which could have a chilling effect. He states that while Conservative clubs only invited specific speakers, students were free to form various political clubs within their universities. The tort might discourage such diversity of thought and organisation.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
The Liberal Democrat MP seeks to intervene but does not provide further details in this excerpt.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
The amendment is unnecessary and has been widely condemned. It will have a chilling effect, especially on smaller institutions. There are significant concerns about the risk of legal challenges leading to self-censorship and administrative burdens without adding any real value.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Asked for clarity on whether there is no challenge to free speech on university campuses, implying that the amendment is necessary despite Matt Western's position.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Acknowledged concerns about financial constraints but argued against totalitarianism and silencing of opposing views, using Balliol College banning the Christian Union as an example.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Referenced a University and College Union survey indicating that 35% of academics self-censor due to fear, suggesting the bill addresses significant issues.
Concerned that the amendment could lead to societies being banned from campuses, exacerbating rather than solving the problem of free speech regulation.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Agreed that the bill diminishes campus experience and quality of university life, leading to an environment where intellectual challenges are stifled due to fear of legal action.
Gareth Bacon
Con
Orpington
Mr. Bacon argues that free speech is a cornerstone of democratic society, essential for creativity and progress, and crucially important when controversial to challenge pre-existing thinking and foster new ideas. He provides evidence from witnesses such as Dr Arif Ahmed and Professor Kathleen Stock, indicating widespread self-censorship among academics (35%) due to fear of disciplinary action or ostracisation. Mr Bacon opposes Lords amendment 10 because it would weaken the Bill's provisions aimed at protecting free speech in higher education.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Ms Moran supports Lords amendment 3, which bans the use of non-disclosure agreements by universities in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, bullying, and misconduct. She highlights a case where an NDA prevented a survivor from seeking medical help or speaking publicly about their assault, leading to feelings of retraumatisation and silencing despite safety measures intended for protection. Ms Moran advocates for immediate legislative action beyond voluntary pledges to end the use of NDAs and no-contact agreements with confidentiality clauses, emphasising that survivors' voices should not be suppressed in exchange for their safety.
Miriam Cates
Con
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Ms Cates argued that clause 4 is essential to protect academic freedoms and ensure thorough testing of ideas before they influence society. She cited radical gender ideology as an example, noting the harmful consequences of its unchecked spread in academia. The tort mechanism in clause 4 provides a necessary feedback loop to discourage universities from stifling free speech, making it crucial for the Bill’s effectiveness.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Blomfield opposes clause 4, citing concerns about costly and unmeritorious claims against higher education providers. He argues that the Office for Students can regulate these issues more effectively than civil litigation.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Kruger supports reinstating clause 4, emphasising the importance of free speech in universities and criticising cultural conformity that suppresses counter-revolutionary voices. He argues that the bill protects freedom of speech on campuses.
Barnsley East
Concerned about the potential chilling effect of the clause on student unions and academic freedom. Noted that previous education Acts already provide protections for equal funding regardless of political persuasion, questioning why a tort is necessary without requiring proven financial damage. Raised concerns over increased liability for student trustees leading to self-censorship among students and societies.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Emphasised the importance of free speech in universities and argued that the Bill is critical to protect against intolerance and censorship. Highlighted cases where academics faced pressure or were silenced due to fear, supporting the statutory tort provision as a necessary tool to give weight to the principles of the Bill and provide support for those who feel voiceless.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Corbyn argued against the Government's proposal, stating it would diminish academic experience and variety on university campuses. He highlighted a fear of legal action leading to self-censorship among student unions and societies, which he sees as detrimental to free speech.
Nici interjected during Corbyn's speech, drawing from her 22 years of experience in higher education. She questioned whether speakers were being cancelled today in contrast to past debates on topics like climate change.
Claire Coutinho
Con
East Surrey
Coutinho supported the Government's position, arguing that the Bill provides a vital legal backstop against self-censorship on campuses. She addressed concerns about the tort and invited critics to engage with Lord Collins of Highbury for further dialogue.
Cates interjected during Corbyn's speech, supporting his example but suggesting that today’s speakers are facing cancellation more than in past decades.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.