Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, we have one amendment in this group, Amendment No. 63, to which we will come in due course. It is another probing amendment. We are grateful to the Minister for her letter of24 April, which explained how the defences would work. I am a little concerned about how it might affect, for example, whistleblowers or a police sting operation, but the Minister will no doubt touch on that when she responds. Our Amendment No. 63, which would leave out Clause 46, is a probing amendment. In Committee, we questioned whether the defence in Clause 46 would cover the whistleblower—for example, a civil servant who encourages a journalist to publish confidential information. I suggest that the disclosure could quite reasonably be made on the grounds of conscience or a perceived threat to public safety. The Minister stated in her earlier, undated letter that were such a person as a civil servant—let us call them C—to be prosecuted under the so-called belief offences, C could argue to the jury that what he did was reasonable. I do not see therefore why in such a case the prosecution would, seeing the possibility of a defence under the offences in Clauses 40 and 41, prosecute under any other offence than Clause 39. Therefore the reasonable defence, where it is expected, could be used unmeritoriously and would simply be sidestepped. I would be grateful to the Minister for a response to that point.