House of Lords Official Report

Vol. 720 Friday No. 28 9 July 2010 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDER OF BUSINESS Defamation Bill [HL] Second Reading Dog Control Bill [HL] Second Reading Written Answers For column numbers see back page £3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/100709.html PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2010, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 423 Defamation Bill [HL][9 JULY 2010] Defamation Bill [HL] 424 whistleblower or the citizen critic who tends to take House of Lords the line of least resistance by censoring information and opinions which the public have need to know. Friday, 9 July 2010. Many examples are likely to be given in this debate. 10 am The Liberal Democrat autumn 2009 conference called for the, Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester. “protection of freedom of expression by reforming the libel laws of England and Wales to ensure a better balance is provided Lord Hoffmann took the oath. between free speech, responsible journalism, scientific discourse and the public interest on the one hand and powerful corporations, Defamation Bill [HL] wealthy individuals and vested interests on the other”. Second Reading After a public campaign which mobilised 52,000 people across the country, all three main political parties 10.07 am recognised in their recent election manifestos that Moved By Lord Lester of Herne Hill defamation law needs further reform. The coalition Government have pledged to reform the law to protect That the Bill be read a second time. freedom of speech. The Bill recognises that defamation law serves an Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move important public interest in protecting a person’s good that this Bill be read a second time. Its central aim is to reputation against unfair attack and calumny. It seeks reform English defamation law so that it strikes a fair to strike a fair balance between free expression and the balance between the fundamental right to freedom of protection of one’s good reputation. That is why the expression and public information and the protection Bill does not, as some free speech NGOs would wish, of a good reputation. It seeks to give better protection follow the American approach and tilt the burden of to free expression, while ensuring fairness and proof away from those responsible for defamatory responsibility in journalism, and necessary protection publications. of the right to a good reputation. It is a measure of the importance of the Bill’s subject-matter that so many The Bill has not been designed by or for the media noble Lords, from such a rich diversity of knowledge or to permit irresponsible journalism. It has been and experience, are taking part. At least as many developed crucially with the expert advice of Sir Brian others have expressed regret that they are unable to be Neill, the distinguished Lord Justice and editor of the here to support the Bill. We will be enriched by two leading textbook on defamation, and Heather Rogers maiden speeches—from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, QC, a libel law specialist. Sir Brian, who I am delighted a long-standing champion of consumer interests, and to say is present for this debate, chaired the Supreme the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who has, among his other Court Procedure Committee on Practice and Procedure qualifications, chaired the Commons Science and in Defamation, whose report was implemented five Technology Committee. years later by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay I believe strongly in self-regulation, provided that it of Clashfern, in his Defamation Bill in 1996. As the is supervised by an independent Press Complaints noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, once noted, Commission, able to provide effective access and to Sir Brian Neill’s knowledge of libel law is second to avoid unnecessary litigation. I am therefore glad that none. At the end of his recent lecture on so-called the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be able to “libel- tourism”, the noble and learned Lord, soon to explain what she sees as the role of the PCC in relation speak in this debate, explained that he did not want to to the Bill. I hope that it will not be necessary to have a suggest that English libel law was perfect. We look statutory commission and hope that the PCC may forward to hearing his views about what is wrong with have an enhanced role which commands wide public the current law. confidence. In preparing the Bill during the past eight months, I The unsatisfactory state of English defamation law have also been helped by advice from a coalition of is notorious and well recognised both here and abroad. NGOs: English PEN, Article 19, Index on Censorship, It suffers from the twin vices of legal uncertainty and Sense About Science, and in-house lawyers from the over-breadth. It has failed to adapt to the changed BBC, the Guardian and News International. I am world of communication by means of the internet and grateful to all of them and to former parliamentary worldwide web. The litigation it engenders is costly counsel, Stephanie Grundy, who has drafted my previous and often protracted, and it has a severe chilling effect Private Member’s Bills, and to Joanna Dawson, who on the freedom of expression not only of powerful has led the work in my parliamentary office. However, newspapers and broadcasters, but of regional newspapers, I emphasise that responsibility for the Bill is mine. NGOs and individual public critics. That chilling effect, The Bill covers a technical and specialised area of well recognised by our most senior courts, encourages law that has been developed largely by the courts for self-censorship and impairs the communication of public centuries with little intervention by Parliament. However, information about matters of legitimate public interest the underlying issues are of constitutional importance and concern. and concern matters of public policy. They are within Last year, Parliament abolished criminal libel. But the proper province of Parliament as well as the courts. the fear of damages and massive legal costs induced Yet, remarkably, this is the first occasion in modern by civil libel law is markedly more inhibiting than the times on which Parliament has had the opportunity to fear of criminal prosecution. It is the NGO, the examine the substance of English defamation law. The 425 Defamation Bill [HL][LORDS] Defamation Bill [HL] 426 [LORD LESTER OF HERNE HILL] However, the Bill does not abolish jury trials. Nor Bill does not impose a rigid and inflexible code. It does the change in relation to jury trials address provides a framework of principles and rules within so-called “libel tourism”. The same working document which courts interpret and apply the law on a case-by-case argues complacently that no new provisions are needed basis. It builds on what is best in current law, and to deal with defamation via the internet or what it brings that law up to date with the effects of electronic describes as the, communication via the internet. “much maligned multiple publications rule”. I have published full Explanatory Notes setting out I am glad that the Minister, my noble friend Lord the background history, the state of the law and the McNally, replied to my Written Question on Wednesday changes proposed by the Bill. The notes are important that the Government, like the previous Labour in unpacking the Bill’s contents and I hope that they Government, are committed to protecting free speech will be read within and well beyond this House. We against unnecessary interference from the European also have the benefit of a useful note prepared by Mr Parliamentary Committee and the European Commission. Patrick Vollmer of the House Library staff. Turning to the Bill’s contents, I will briefly refer to Although the Government cannot, of course, commit the passages in the Explanatory Notes where they themselves to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I are described in more detail.

Load more