Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, Amendments 1, 15 and 16 constitute a partial enactment in statute of a number of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The reasons given by the other place for disagreeing with these amendments reflect the fact that, as the House will be aware, on 18 March cross-party talks were resolved successfully and a draft royal charter was agreed as the vehicle by which the recognition body should be set up.
Detailed criteria by which self-regulators would be assessed were also agreed, and provisions to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on incentives in costs and exemplary damages have subsequently been included in the Crime and Courts Bill. A further “no change” clause has also been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as a safeguard against political intervention with the royal charter. These measures have cross-party support.
I take this opportunity to address an issue that I know is of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on how provisions are being taken forward to provide access to justice and cost protection for those of limited means. It may be helpful to provide the House with an update on the action we are taking. As noble Lords are aware, we asked the Civil Justice Council to report on the issue of cost protection by the end of March. It has done so, and recommended that the regime of qualified one-way cost shifting, or QOCS, should be adapted to defamation and privacy cases. A number of adaptations are necessary, given the rather different nature and variety of defamation and privacy proceedings compared with personal injury claims. We are now considering the CJC report, and as your Lordships will appreciate this is quite a complex area. While the report does not represent a blueprint of the new rules to be applied, it does set out the issues that need to be addressed, and makes recommendations on how to address them.
It will be for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make the rules on costs protection in due course, once the Government have set out the way forward. My officials will work with the Committee on this. I am conscious that the CJC has not consulted on this issue, and I believe that we need to consult before we finalise the proposals. Our aim is therefore to work with the Rule Committee in drafting appropriate rules, perhaps with alternatives, on which we can consult more widely over the summer.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will be interested in that consultation, and I will ensure that he and other noble Lords with an interest in this area are included in the consultation. Depending on the outcome of that consultation, we then aim to implement a costs protection regime later in the year.
I hope that provides reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and to others, about the promises I have made about cost protection at various stages of the Bill. During our debate on the Crime and Courts Bill provisions on 25 March, both the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated that they were happy for the Bill to complete its passage without Amendments 1, 15 and 16. I hope that remains the case, and that noble Lords will agree to the removal of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, first I would say that we often refer to Fox’s Libel Act. I hope that when this Bill becomes law it will be referred to as Lord McNally’s Libel Act, because he above all has had the energy to drive it forward. He said at one stage that he would not allow the Bill to be overwhelmed by what he called the tsunami of Leveson. The reason why I strongly support Motion A is because it provides a way of avoiding being overwhelmed by the tsunami of Leveson. It removes what I consider to be unnecessary hostage-taking in some amendments to the Defamation Bill. It has now been freed in the Commons, and therefore I strongly support it. I have some difficulty with the reason, in a sense, because it says that,
“the draft Royal Charter … and … the Crime and Courts Bill and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will be sufficient to implement the recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s report”.
I think that is completely true. Whether Lord Justice Leveson’s report will eventually pass muster is quite another question, but that is not to be debated now.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this situation, and to see the Defamation Bill back on its ordinary course. I do not entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said about the amendments that were passed by this House, but now they are certainly unnecessary and I am delighted that the Defamation Bill can proceed.
Lord May of Oxford
I wish to make a few remarks which may embarrassingly reveal my lack of full acquaintance with the legal arcana in this case but at the same time remind us of at least one of the major reasons why we are having these discussions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for doing a good job extremely conscientiously in complicated circumstances with a lot of opinions swirling round him.
I remind noble Lords yet again of what prompted this action in the first place: libel tourism to this country to shut up people who wish to point out instances of malpractice in pharmaceutical companies in a variety of contexts. I come mainly from the science base, where there are interminable examples, about which I could go on for hours. I will inflict one example on your Lordships and then I will speak more briefly. It is a typical example, which raises many of the issues that still concern me despite the good job that is being done. It comes from a chap called Peter Wilmshurst, who wrote to me in an e-mail:
“I am a consultant cardiologist in Shrewsbury. A US medical device corporation, NMT Medical, sued me for libel and slander three times in the High Court in England. I was the principal cardiologist in research, which was conducted on UK citizens and used a cardiac device made by NMT. At a medical conference in the USA, I expressed concern about the findings of the research and some of my comments were reported on a US cardiology website. As a result NMT sued me in England over the website article and a subsequent article. The journalist and the website were not sued. When I spoke about what happened on the Today programme on Radio 4 I was sued again, despite the interview being pre-recorded so that the BBC’s lawyers could make sure that there was no risk of further litigation. NMT did not sue the BBC. Everything that I said was provably true, but that did not prevent NMT starting expensive claims with the expectation that the cost would stop me expressing concerns about the lack of safety and lack of efficacy of their device. I know that fear of being sued by NMT prevented other doctors expressing similar concerns. The libel cases lasted almost 4 years and my legal costs were £300,000”—
which is actually low compared to some of the incidents in mind. The journal Nature, for example, spent £1.5 million successfully defending one of these libel cases.
Peter Wilmshurst continued:
“The cases ended when NMT went into liquidation as information about the problems with their devices filtered out and cardiologists stopped using them”—
something I will come back to. He continued:
“During the years when NMT silenced doctors who had legitimate concerns, the ineffective and unsafe devices were implanted in patients in the UK and elsewhere. Some patients needed urgent cardiac surgery to have devices removed and some died. That was the true cost of the English defamation laws having no adequate public interest defence to prevent spurious claims by wealthy corporations. I believe that if Parliamentarians did not have absolute privilege when speaking in Parliament”—
and that is a comfort I have here, having once been silenced in a cowardly way—
“and they had only the same protections as ordinary citizens, they would ensure that there was an adequate public interest defence and protection from corporations using the defamation laws to silence whistleblowers and prevent freedom of expression”.
We did that way back.
I mention that example in particular because, as noble Lords will notice, the original action was effective. Ultimately, it caused this company to go bust. One of the amendments we are talking about asks for a way of preventing this sort of bludgeoning of people into silence by the power of the purse and the extraordinary extravagance of our legal procedures. It comes home to us very clearly that simply saying that a company must prove you are damaging them by what you are saying is not going to prevent many of these cases because the aim of what many people are saying when they provoke these actions is, indeed, to inflict damage. The aim is to point out bad and unsafe practice and unsound publications, and to damage the people responsible. I am not clear that simply saying that companies must show they are damaged would really cure the problem at all. I may be revealing my ignorance, but I wanted to say again that this is what provoked it. In what sometimes seemed to me interminable sessions in Grand Committee, in which I took a form of perverse enjoyment, the intense arcana of the legalisms occasionally seemed—to put it gently—to distract from the essence of the problem. My understanding, imperfect though it is, is that we are going a long way to addressing this problem but not all the way that, were I supreme dictator, we would go.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I hope, in what will be a short speech, to deal with all the amendments together. In answer to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord May, corporations are not the same as private individuals. They cannot have hurt feelings but they can be seriously damaged by defamatory statements. I therefore share the view of many courts across the world that corporations should be able to bring libel proceedings but on certain conditions. The short answer to Dr Wilmshurst is that we now have, in what will be Clause 4, a public interest defence which, quite apart from the other provisions in his favour, he would be able to rely upon.
I begin by dealing with the question of damages. I do not want to crow about it, but it was actually in my own Private Member’s Bill that I required corporate bodies to have to prove the likelihood of financial loss or actual financial loss. That was commended by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on which I serve and, as a member, was able to inform its report. I think that the Government have made an important concession and I am delighted that the Opposition have recognised that and, indeed, have called for it themselves. It is, of course, extremely important that corporations are able to bring libel proceedings but, as I say, are able to do so if they are trading corporations by proving serious financial loss or the likelihood of serious financial loss.
All of that is now common ground, and what is left are the two important issues of the Derbyshire principle and the notion of a special procedural step to be taken, which is set out in Amendment 2D. It requires the permission of the court before a trading corporation can sue. I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord McNally’s way of dealing with that. It is a procedural point that will be dealt with by the early resolution procedure and by proper case management. It does not require a rigid rule to be inserted into the Bill, and therefore I would not support Amendment 2D.
What, then, about the Derbyshire principle? The House has the benefit of having as a Member of the House of Lords the judge who decided Derbyshire when he was even younger than he now is, my noble and learned kinsman Lord Woolf of Barnes, and I am sure that he will correct anything I am about to say. I want to say something about Derbyshire because I think that it has been misunderstood. It has been misunderstood by the Government because they seem to think that if one were to codify—I am now against codifying for a reason I shall come to—that would be in some way rigid and inflexible because it would prevent a body exercising functions of a public nature being able to vindicate its reputation. That is wrong because, as the Derbyshire case establishes and makes clear, unlike the position in the United States where no one can sue to vindicate the reputation of a government body, it is always open to a body exercising public functions through its officers or any individual who is defamed to bring their own defamation proceedings. It also makes it perfectly clear through Lord Keith of Kinkel in his speech for the House of Lords that there is also the tort of malicious falsehood. This means that if a government body can prove bad faith or reckless disregard for the truth, it can also bring proceedings. The Government are therefore mistaken in thinking that to codify in the way that the Opposition wish to do—with my support the last time round—would create a rigid and inflexible position. That is not so, but the question is whether we were right last time to try to codify the principle.
Since then, something has happened which has caused me to think again. It is the situation in Northern Ireland, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will say something about it. Since the last occasion, the governing authorities in Northern Ireland have decided in their wisdom that the Defamation Bill should not apply to the Province. NGOs, newspapers, broadcasters and citizen critics often convey information and ideas which are not confined to any particular part of the United Kingdom but extend to the whole of it.
What troubles me about codification is not what troubles the Government. What troubles me is that, were we to codify in the way that is now suggested, in Northern Ireland, Mr Paul Tweed, in particular, who is the king of libel suits in that part of the United Kingdom, would argue, “This is codified in England and Wales but it is common law in Northern Ireland and the way in which it is codified suggests that Parliament had serious doubts about what Derbyshire meant. Now we are going to seek to apply a narrower view than Derbyshire itself”. That has made me think about the whole issue in this context of codification versus common law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to my noble friend. Although my noble friend is not a lawyer, and has the great advantage of not being a lawyer, would he agree with me as a matter of common sense, that it cannot make the slightest difference whether it is the prison department or a private contractor managing the prison so far as the Derbyshire principle is concerned, because the Human Rights Act makes that quite clear?
Lord McNally
I have no doubt that my noble friend is right. What I would prefer to do, as we have been arguing throughout this, is to leave that matter to a judge and a court, when it comes before it. Where I do think there is a relevant question—not that my noble friend’s question was not relevant, it is just that I did not want to answer it—is on the question of charities. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Phillips that it is not our intention to catch charities. We think that it is very unlikely that a court would find that a charity was a body trading for profit. There is a clear distinction between trading for profit and simply making a profit to reinvest as part of the more general purposes of the organisation. I hope that will give comfort to my noble friend.
He was another one that was concerned about bullying, and I have just made the point about balancing. I was pleased to hear about Bill McNally, not least that he was a successful poacher.
The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Lester, about Northern Ireland are worrying, and I will take up the point about whether there can be some cross-party demarche to our fellow parliamentarians in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because it would be a great pity if Northern Ireland were to be out of step on this.
I understand why I am being asked to make definitions. However, the fault lines are moving and we will have to trust the courts with this strengthened Bill for them to make the right decision in this area. I take the point made by the noble Lord, which is very valid. Although I and Parliament have made clear our desire for a direction of travel here, there is a danger that the Derbyshire principle may be eroded because of this new configuration. However, trying to put the Derbyshire principle into statute at this time is not the way forward. The common law can be trusted to develop in the right direction. As I have said previously, no law on earth can prevent a speculatively threatening letter from a solicitor.
The Bill has been the work of many hands. If a piece of legislation were to be subject to a paternity test and DNA testing, this Bill’s DNA would be far more likely to be that of my noble friend Lord Lester than me. However, I have enjoyed—I think that that is the right word—taking the Bill through with the help of many hands and some very constructive contributions. I hope that the House’s last and most constructive contribution will be to accept the Government’s amendment and reject the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making reference to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has just talked about surrogate parentage. Perhaps we can all claim a little of that. However, the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord May of Oxford, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Lord Bew, Lord Faulks and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, actually reflected what was going on in Committee and on Report. The Minister used the tactful words, “development of thinking”; we are therefore not going to talk about u-turns, but simply welcome the development of thinking behind the new government clause.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew. It sounds as if Northern Ireland in itself is a bad example, let alone the suggestion that this House or Parliament should make our laws on the basis of something decided in that Province. No matter how important that Province is, that is not the right way to make our laws here.
As regards two further issues, the first was on whether permission should be sought by corporates before they start an action. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made a slip of the tongue, for which he is not renowned, when he said that in order to bring an action, companies would have to show serious financial loss. Of course, that is not right with the Bill at the moment. Corporates do not have to show financial loss in order to bring an action, but only to succeed in one. That is the crux of the matter in terms of whether permission should be given before they are able to start an action.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very sorry to intervene, but Clause 1 has to be read with what we are talking about.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It was the word “bring”. What we are trying to say regarding permissions is that permission of the court should be required in order to bring that action. In a sense, the most effective speech about permissions was, of course, made not by me but by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. He discussed the case of Wilmshurst, which involved four years, £300,000, a risk to patients and actually of course no serious case at the bottom of it, because what he said was true. That is what we are trying to get rid of.
To turn to the main issue of Derbyshire, in a sense this is quite a simple judgment. It is a judgment about whether the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Lester and Lord McNally, are right that we should leave it to the courts and to judges to decide on whether the Derbyshire principle should now apply to other organisations providing public services, or whether we as Parliament want to take that decision. My fear about leaving it to the courts is how on earth users—patients, Travellers, people who are receiving those public services, the disabled who go to Atos—are to know what their rights are if we have to wait for the court to develop the Derbyshire principles. How are parties going to know? Who will fund the test cases? What message does it give to users and patients, and indeed to journalists wanting to report their complaints, if they must wait to know what the outcome is?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is interesting, but performance of public function will be under either a contract or a commission given out by the DWP or the local authority. They will be able to define that, because they do not simply stand up and say, “I am now providing a hospital”. A contract will exist with what used to be a PCT and is now a GP commissioning group. There will be a contract and it can be defined in that way. If that was the only problem and the Government wanted to concede other than on that, I would happily take that. No, the offer is not coming. I would like to conclude, if possible—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very grateful. The problem is that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act talks about functions of a private or public nature. That is fact-sensitive and cannot be codified, and has not been codified by Parliament in the Human Rights Act. That is why one cannot simply brush it aside and say, “Well, now Parliament must do so”, because Parliament has not done so in the Human Rights Act and cannot do so here. It has to be left to the courts to apply the test.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Parliament can decide that the organisations contracted to do those public functions should have the same restrictions on them, whether that be FOI or anything else, as a corporate body. That can be part of the contract. In a sense, it is a simple issue, and I mean this with absolute respect. I know that lawyers much prefer that these issues are decided in court. I think non-lawyers prefer it to be clear in law, and that is what we believe should happen. We do not want the Derbyshire principle to be eroded, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, by the threats continuing until a case is brought. For that reason we would like this to be in the Bill, and I would like to test—
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment to Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, because it is urgent to establish an effective, affordable and independent route for resolving claims of defamation. In doing so, I declare an interest as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Unlike my noble friend Lady Hollins, who also brings the expertise of experience of intrusion and defamation to this debate, I bring only a track record of speaking and writing on the conflict between rights to freedom of expression and other rights, including the right to reputation.
I do not think that it is a matter of dispute that we need a cheap and effective way of resolving claims of defamation. However, the mechanism for resolving such claims needs also to be fair, and that means that it has to be independent not only of the interests of both parties but also of the Government. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to achieve that. I think that this amendment to the amendment would do so rather more effectively; it is at least more explicit, which enables your Lordships to consider what it would actually take to achieve independence in this matter.
Both amendments build on Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal to create an independent recognition commission that will validate the standards to which any voluntary regulatory body for the media works. Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal is, as we all recognise, ingenious because it offers a way of retaining media self-regulation while requiring that self-regulation to meet adequate standards of fairness and independence as certified by a recognition body. The amendment sets out incentives for media organisations to participate in a voluntary regulatory body—it will be much cheaper for them if that body is recognised by an independent recognition body—and it also sets out incentives for claimants to use the arbitration service. Again, it will be cheaper and quicker.
The complaints system run by the PCC—or should I perhaps say the former PCC?—was in many ways cheap to use, but it had a range of deficiencies, which have been much discussed in your Lordships’ House and in Lord Justice Leveson’s report, and it lacked that crucial form of independence. I do not think that we should pass a defamation Bill that fails to address these fundamental defects. The connections between intrusion and defamation are too close for us simply to overlook them.
The detail of these amendments and of Schedule 17 is complex, although they have been much discussed by those with the relevant drafting expertise. I do not think we are likely to come much closer to satisfying the requirements of all parties. I hope very much that the Minister can indicate that the Government will accept these amendments or at least can indicate that their fundamental purpose will be secured by government amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
One can see why the other place was so well regulated.
It is essential for the three main political parties to reach agreement on what needs to be done to give effect to the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s inquiry. If these amendments are designed to put pressure on the coalition Government to achieve that aim, they are most welcome. But if they are intended to become part of this Bill, then I cannot support them, despite the great authority of their supporters, including a former Lord Chancellor, a former Attorney-General, and my old friend and Cork neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am not aware that he took much part in the earlier deliberations on the Defamation Bill, and most of what he said about the Bill is wrong, but I am not going to go into the details now because I do not think it is relevant. The Government have done a great deal to secure a Bill that balances reputation and free expression, tries to deal with the abuses of costs, procedural rules, downscaling and so on and so forth. It is not a Bill, as the noble Lord suggested, that has been written by the newspaper industry. In its original form, it was written by me, and I made quite sure that the original Bill and the Government’s draft Bill were not like that at all. That is not relevant to what we are now considering.
I made clear during the debate on Leveson that I support statutory underpinning to make press self-regulation effective and that my little Bill is intended to do that. I shall, if necessary, introduce a Bill on those lines in the next Session, no doubt improved by this debate. I want to make it clear that I have strong objections to excessive statutory intervention, including the use of exemplary damages as a sanction, which was twice rejected by the previous Labour Government as punitive, but which the draft Bill put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for some reason includes. The sanction of exemplary damages is likely to be in breach of the convention right to freedom of expression, especially when read with the coercive amendment punishing publishers who fail to seek clearance pre-publication from a statutory regulatory board. During the Leveson debate, I pointed out that Mr Justice Eady had set out in detail in his judgment in the Mosley case,
“why it would be wrong in principle and a violation of free speech to extend exemplary damages”.—[Official Report, 11/1/13; col. 374.]
That was the position of the previous Labour Government.
The concept of pre-clearance and punitive damages was also rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 10 May 2011 in the Max Mosley case, in which I intervened for Guardian Newspapers. The European Court decided in paragraph 129:
“Although punitive fines or criminal sanctions could be effective in encouraging compliance with any pre-notification requirement, the Court considers that these would run the risk of being incompatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention … It is satisfied that the threat of criminal sanctions or punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism, both of which attract a high level of protection under the Convention”.
The Leveson inquiry was concerned with serious press misconduct involving gross media intrusions on personal privacy. The Bill before the House is, as its Long Title makes clear, a Bill to amend the law of defamation. It is not a Bill to amend the law of privacy. These amendments would stretch the scope of the Bill beyond its object and purpose by referring to what is described as,
“defamation and related civil claims”,
to include, apparently, violations of personal privacy. They cannot do so, and therefore do not address the central concerns of the Leveson report, but seek to use this Bill as a vehicle which was designed for a very different journey.
Leveson recommended an arbitral process in relation to civil legal claims that, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, would be,
“fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free for complainants to use … The arbitrator must have the power to hold hearings where necessary but, equally, to dispense with them where it is not necessary”.
It would seem that Sir Brian Leveson did not consider whether what he proposed would be compatible with Articles 6 or 10 of the convention. It is unclear whether the movers of these amendments intend Part One of the Arbitration Act to apply. It is also unclear whether they intend the arbitration arrangements to be voluntary and entered into freely. Apparently they do not intend that, and the amendments are silent on these crucial issues.
Article 6 of the convention guarantees a fair and public hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In Paul Stretford v Football Association—where the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, appeared for the FA—the Court of Appeal examined the relationship between an arbitration agreement and Article 6 of the convention. The Court of Appeal considered that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were important in the context of Article 6, because the Arbitration Act, unlike these amendments, provides for a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, and its mandatory provisions ensure that the High Court has the power to put right any want of impartiality or procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal noted that the Strasbourg jurisprudence has made it clear that the arbitration agreement must be voluntary and not compulsory. It said:
“By compulsory in this context is meant required by law”.
The scheme envisaged by these amendments is inquisitorial and not adversarial. It is not a voluntary scheme because of the threat of exemplary damages for failure to use a recognised arbitration service. The arbitrator does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process by an independent court or tribunal established by law. The arbitrator can dispense with hearings in his or her discretion. There is no right of appeal to an independent court or tribunal and the process is free for complainants but to be paid for by the press. In my view, such a scheme would be incompatible with Articles 6 and 10 of the convention. It would result in complex legal disputes.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I always listen with care when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speaking about human rights because of his great experience and his important role in our nation in arguing for human rights. However, I take issue with his interpretation of Article 6 and the statement that any kind of arbitration in this field would in some way contravene that article. The whole purpose of human rights is to empower the weak and to recognise the ways in which due process can often disadvantage those who have no money. The purpose of arbitration in this context is not simply to speed things up or to move things along. Much of our arbitration concerns two parties coming together to try to find a smoother way to deal with something, but in this context the purpose of arbitration is to redress the fact that our current system disadvantages whole tracts of people who cannot afford to go to litigation at all. I think you would find that the courts would not accept the literal interpretation of this concept on the part of some of our colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also said that this provision would be a contravention of human rights. I think you would find that the courts would take a very different view.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful for that but I think the noble Baroness does not understand what I was saying, which is my fault. I was saying that the Arbitration Act is a perfectly fair way of tackling this issue but these amendments do not give effect to that Act and a right of appeal. If they did so, it would be quite a different matter. I was trying to explain why they do not. For that reason, they violate Article 6 as well as Article 8.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance and executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He and I have made common cause on a number of things over the years. However, we rarely agree on issues of regulation and I am afraid that I will not disappoint him today because I believe that what he is proposing is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for this House to intervene statutorily in press regulation and to deliver an arbitration service. Actually, it would be counterproductive and set back the delivery of the arbitration system which is currently being worked on.
As noble Lords will know—my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned it just now—I have been working with my noble friend Lord Hunt and others to build a new independent regulator with tough powers backed by the force of contract law. An arbitration system is a central part of that, and it is important that I explain how it would fit in, not least in dealing with the news blackout that my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
The noble Baroness is quite right. I have spoken many times to Professor Horgan and to the Irish press council. Much of what I am seeking to introduce in the new Leveson-compliant body will follow the lessons learnt in the Republic of Ireland. All that I was seeking to point out to Lord Justice Leveson was that as soon as you go down any statutory route, which requires a Bill—I added this after I had made my comment about the Defamation Bill—you would be opening Pandora’s box. I suppose that the proof of that is the revised Marshalled List of amendments, because we are now getting into quite complicated territory.
I think that the way forward is, yes, to hear from the Government what has been happening in these three areas—
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, this is Report, and the noble Lord has had his say.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is my noble friend Lord Hunt saying that he would oppose any form of statutory underpinning, even my little Bill? Is that his position?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, after that excitement I rise to move Amendment 2 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It would end the current position whereby individuals and organisations have identical hurdles to jump in an action for defamation.
Defamation is about someone’s reputation being trampled and seriously damaged by untrue statements made about them. Some commentators think that since only people and not organisations have feelings, only people should be able to sue. We do not go that far. We accept that organisations can be damaged by untrue allegations. Had horse meat not been in those burgers, or pork not in that halal food, such innocent information could have substantially and unjustifiably ruined a company’s reputation and caused untold financial harm. That would be the same if a small corner butcher, for example, was wrongly accused of having mice in the shop, if Perrier was falsely accused of being a purveyor of foul water or if a car manufacturer was said to have made a car with unsafe brakes.
Amendment 2 would allow such cases to be brought, provided that the allegations would cause substantial financial harm. The approach came from the Joint Committee. The amendment was moved in Committee on this Bill by its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who cannot be in his place today. It is supported by Liberty, the Libel Reform Campaign, the Media Lawyers Association, Which? and the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which noted the mismatch of resources in a libel action between large corporations, for which money may be no object, and a small newspaper or NGO, which has had a stifling effect on freedom of expression.
In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said that it was unacceptable that corporations were able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel actions that they knew the publisher could not afford to defend but where there was no realistic prospect of financial loss.
This morning on the “Today” programme, John Humphrys, normally not afraid of anything, commented on a piece about branding and said that he dared not say anything derogatory about Coca-Cola because it would sue. John Humphrys may be powerful, but clearly not powerful enough to damage Coke’s profits. Even he knew the chill factor of a threatened action.
In Committee, our amendment was supported by my noble friend Lord Triesman and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord May of Oxford. It is no secret that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, shared this view until his then boss, Ken Clarke, took him into a quiet room, sat him down and, with the persuasiveness for which he is renowned, convinced him that corporations have reputations. The words are those used by the Minister in Committee on 17 December.
The cases that led to much of the pressure for libel reform were largely brought by corporations, using deep pockets and expensive lawyers to stifle criticism. An American corporation sued Dr Peter Wilmshurst, the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh, Trafigura sued the BBC, manufacturers are for ever threatening Which?, and McDonald’s infamously and stupidly sued two individuals.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights called for the Bill to be amended so that non-natural persons would be required to establish substantial financial loss in any claim for defamation. Its report stated:
“Professor Phillipson … suggests that the failure to impose any restrictions on corporations’ ability to sue in defamation renders the law on reputation inconsistent and incoherent. Defamation law and the protection afforded under Article 8 has developed on the basis that the protection of an individual’s reputation is a significant human rights issue. Corporate claimants have neither personal emotions nor dignity, and yet are treated as natural persons for the purposes of defamation”.
The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee also called for a requirement on a corporation to prove actual damage to its business before an action could be brought. Regrettably, the Government opposed this on the grounds that a corporation does have a reputation. Our amendment does not contradict that. It simply requires companies to obtain the court’s permission to sue by showing that it has been, or is likely to be, caused substantial financial loss. This has widespread support and we hope that the Minister will think again.
The second part of our amendment extends the bar on public authorities being able to take action to other organisations performing a public function. The Derbyshire principle is a legal precedent that a government authority cannot be sued for libel. There are good reasons for this. First, it is a body corporate and thus, under the first part of the amendment, it should be debarred since it cannot show financial loss, given that all of us must pay its levy, whether by income tax or rates. The second reason is the comparative resources of any government body compared with those of an individual. The third is that such an authority had a monopoly over education, street cleaning, social care, parking and myriad other services, so any damage to a its reputation would not dent its market, while publicity was a key driver of improved services or access to redress, since users were unable to take their custom elsewhere. That world has changed. We now have free schools in competition with those run by local authorities, while the voluntary sector and private companies run myriad services on behalf of public authorities and paid for by public funds.
First, users need to be able to comment on such services without fear of a defamation action. Secondly, ratepayers and taxpayers must similarly be able to comment without fear of action. Thirdly, since such services are won through competitive tendering, it seems extraordinary that in compiling their bids, private or voluntary sector organisations can say what they like about the local authority against which they are bidding, but could take action for defamation if the local authority or any of its service users said a critical word about them. Are these providers spending taxpayers’ money on services, including issues such as the Border Agency, adoption and care homes, really to be protected from criticism by hiding behind the threat of defamation? Surely we should be able to hear questions about standards, complaints or conduct without lawyers bullying commentators into silence.
Our amendment would cover only those parts of a corporation performing a public function. Thus, Virgin Care would lose its right to sue over its commissioned work but Mr Branson could still protect his brand’s name where Virgin’s profitability was at risk. In the Commons, the Government rejected this on the excuse that the court in Derbyshire had rejected it. However, that was 20 years ago, when outsourcing was a fraction of what it is today. Now we have one lot of bidders—public bodies—at a disadvantage compared with others because one side can sue for libel but not the other.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that,
“legislation could remove the flexibility that exists under the common law for the courts to develop the Derbyshire principle … in the light of individual cases … it is better to allow the courts to do this rather than introduce … statutory provision”.—[Official Report, 17/12/12; col. GC 467.]
This is a decision that Parliament should take, not the courts. Why do a 2013 Government, pledged to update our defamation laws, feel bound by a 1993 ruling when new legislation is exactly the time to make good any shortfall in the law? The Derbyshire case upheld the right for uninhibited public criticism of public authorities. We should extend this to organisations carrying out those services which were once the monopoly of public authorities.
The amendment is not unfair to corporations. It allows them access to the courts to pursue a defamation case where there is a risk of substantial financial harm to their business. It would remove that right only from those providing public services, akin to the existing bar on public authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment, which would reinstate a provision from my Private Member’s Bill preventing profit-making bodies from suing in defamation except where they can show substantial financial loss or the likelihood of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has indicated, it would extend the Derbyshire principle to bodies performing public functions. It does not seek to prevent companies from suing. It simply requires that they show harm where they feel it most—in the pocket. I do not believe that companies should not be allowed to sue for libel. They have no feelings but they and their shareholders are able to be hurt in their pocket book. If we were to bar companies altogether from suing, that would clearly violate the European Convention on Human Rights because it would be discriminatory.
That is why, in my Private Member’s Bill and in these amendments, I have supported the right of corporations and trading companies to sue provided that they can show actual, or the likelihood of, serious financial loss. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill concluded:
“It is unacceptable that corporations are able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel claims which they know the publisher cannot afford to defend and where there is no realistic prospect of serious financial loss. However, we do not believe that corporations should lose the right to sue for defamation altogether … we favour the approach which limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of ‘substantial financial loss’ … corporations should be required to obtain the permission of the court before bringing a libel claim. This would encourage robust and decisive action by the courts to prevent trivial and abusive litigation from being commenced at all”.
Before I turn to the second limb of the amendment, I wish to make it clear that there is nothing to stop the directors or officers of a company from suing in their own right; it simply hampers the ability of the corporate body, the trading body, to do so itself. So it is conspicuously moderate and balanced and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, perhaps I can be very naughty and thank the House for its support on that Division.
The intention behind Amendment 3, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and myself, sets out a vital procedure—the ability of a court to strike out an action for defamation. This power is vital. Everything that the Bill seeks to achieve has been about reducing costs—which have completely distorted the law on defamation—by facilitating early resolution, as the Minister said in response to an earlier amendment. If the key issues can be decided early on—which the virtual ending of jury trials enables—then lawyers’ time is diminished and costs are brought down.
The costs in these cases, as we have heard, are such that they put the use of the law to protect reputation beyond the reach of all but the richest. The only others who have been able to make use of this law are those who have used no-win no-fee cases to do so—arrangements which are shortly to be ended. This law has been beyond the reach of most people. Virtually no defendant can contest a case, or claimants bring one, as they risk being crippled not just by their own legal costs but by those of the other side. I heard just today of a case involving one day in court which cost £40,000 on each side.
So costs are vital, as is early resolution. Up against a rich newspaper, no one without sizeable means can consider taking on a case. With a multimillionaire, an oligarch or a company even threatening an action, journalists, papers, NGOs or Which? will be reluctant to publish anything, no matter how true, that is going to tie them up in legal and financial nightmares.
The amendment is about the last part of the jigsaw. Having enabled early decision of most issues by clarity of the law and the reduction of the use of juries, we now need active case management and the clear authority of the court to strike out before trial actions that fail the test of serious harm based on a falsehood, or where other jurisdiction is more appropriate.
That clear ability of a court to strike out an action is what we want written into the Bill. It would allow either side to apply for this strike-out or for the judge to start the process. At one level, the amendment would write into the Bill what in effect exists in the Civil Procedure Rules but which will not be evident to the ordinary member of the public, be they a potential claimant or a defendant. Non-lawyers do not even know of the existence of the Civil Procedure Rules, much less what they say.
The Bill has aimed to provide for a lay person—an author or the defamed—a clear statement of what the law on defamation is, without recourse to a lawyer or a legal textbook. Our description of the power of a court to stop an action is clear. It would show to the claimant that unless they could show serious harm to their reputation, and a tort—that it was wrongful—then they should proceed no further. It would indicate to the defendant that they could go to the court and ask for such a strike-out when it was obvious to them either that the claimant had no relevant reputation here or that any such reputation had not been caused serious damage. This is clarity; it would add to the Bill a power that is already there, and it would be a signal that we want early case management so that as many of these issues as possible can be dealt with and, where appropriate, struck out. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. One of the difficult things about having a Bill like this is to decide what Parliament should be doing and what the courts should be doing. Parliament has put into Clause 1 this very important barrier of serious harm. In his important reply to the previous debate, the Minister helpfully indicated that serious harm—for example, with a corporate body—would include the likelihood of serious financial loss as one of the factors to take into account. Obviously this is a preliminary hurdle, and obviously the procedure rules, which are not in the Bill but will be in the Civil Procedure Rules, and case management will ensure that a party can come before the judge at the beginning and say, “Strike this out because the serious harm test is not satisfied”.
My first reason for not supporting this is that it deals with matters of procedure that will be dealt with, I think, by the Civil Procedure Rules themselves, a pre-action protocol and case management. The second reason is that the factors that are listed here,
“caused or is likely to cause serious harm … and … a real and substantial tort in the jurisdiction”,
are exactly the kinds of issues that one would expect the judge to have regard to, but the Government have very wisely decided to move against having a checklist—for example, in Clause 4. I think that our judges can be well trusted to be able to apply the serious harm test in Clause 1 without a checklist and without being fettered in any way.
I sympathise with the aim of the amendment, but it is an example of overreach. We should not be writing this kind of procedural detail into the Bill; we should leave it to the wise discretion of the judiciary.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. It is possible that the House may remember the contribution that I made to the first debate when I drew the House’s attention to the protocol, which does very much what the amendment seeks to do. Under the current law it is perfectly possible, and indeed it happens on a regular basis, that a court will rule on a preliminary basis and will strike out claims, either pursuant to the CPR or under the inherent jurisdiction. They will manage the case so that preliminary matters are heard—for example, an issue as to meaning—without a full-scale trial. Judges and masters are experienced in dealing with this, and that is a matter that should be left to the protocol and to the masters to develop as a matter of practice. With respect, it is not a matter that should be put in the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I move Amendment 4 essentially on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who cannot be here this evening. In the light of what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I am hoping that when the Explanatory Notes to the Bill are brought up to date when the Bill becomes law, some of these points will be dealt with in them, which is an authoritative way of doing so.
There are two ways in which I can move this amendment: the long way and the short way. Since I detect in my noble friend Lord McNally’s previous reply not exactly bitterness but a sort of cynicism about certain attitudes, I shall do it the short way because I think we can cut the cackle on this by coming to the point that was troubling the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and Sir Brian Neill.
The amendment turns on a case called Telnikoff in the context of the honest opinion defence in Clause 3. In Telnikoff, the House of Lords decided that it was insufficient for a letter commenting on a newspaper article to refer to the article in order to establish that it was opinion, not fact. The letter had to be recognisable as opinion on its own rather than in the context of the article. My noble friend wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on 9 January. I shall not repeat what he wrote, nor will I repeat what was said by the Minister. It did not satisfy the noble and learned Lord, which is why he wished to come back to it on Report.
I suggest that if the Minister in his reply can clear up any further confusion by making it clear that in the light of the Bill the Government do not regard Telnikoff as good law, so that if the same facts were to come before the courts under Clause 3(3), a reference to the original newspaper article on which the letter was commenting should be enough to establish the first and second conditions in Clause 3, that would be most helpful. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, returns, if he does not find the answer sufficiently clear I will leave it to him to decide what to do at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I support of this amendment and do so by adopting the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which, I think, in turn adopts what I described as the compelling argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in Grand Committee on 19 December at col. GC 522. I commend the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the Minister.
In rereading the debate in Grand Committee, I am reminded that he offered a very similar opportunity to the Minister on that occasion, which the Minister scorned. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was awaiting the letter that became the letter of 9 January 2013. I recollect that in col. GC 528 in the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, indicated that he might be able, in the same vein as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to give the comfort that the noble and learned Lord was seeking. I have to say—this should not surprise anybody—that we were all, I think, persuaded by the noble and learned Lord’s argument in relation to Telnikoff and why it should not still be considered to be the law in the same circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the opportunity that he has on this occasion to resolve this issue once and for all.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I indeed hope that this will be resolved once and for all. If my noble friend is going to withdraw under the temptation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, can bring this back at Third Reading, I would rather that he tested the opinion of the House. I will try to make as clear as possible on the record the Government’s opinion on this, but I cannot start trying to rerun 20 year-old legal battles.
Clause 3 provides for the honest opinion defence to be available if three conditions are met. Amendment 5 provides that the second condition in subsection (3)— that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion—is met if the defendant indicates the subject matter of a letter or article appearing in a newspaper or other publication and the date when it appeared.
On the basis of our discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on whose behalf my noble friend is speaking this evening, we understand that the core issue underlying the amendment relates to what should be taken into account in determining whether the statement complained of is one of fact or opinion. We consider that this goes to the first condition in Clause 3(2)—that the statement complained of was one of opinion—rather than to the second condition in subsection (3).
At common law, when deciding whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, the court can look at the statement only in its immediate context. So if the statement appears in a news story or in a letter to an editor, the court can look only at the particular news story or the particular letter. The intention behind Amendment 5 is to change this so that the court can also look at other documents that provide a context for the statement.
This is a difficult issue, as is evidenced by the varying judicial opinions that were expressed when this was considered by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords some 20 years ago in the case of Telnikoff v Matusevitch, to which my noble friend has referred. However, on balance, and with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Government believe that the current law is in the right place. We consider that it should be clear from the document in which the statement appears that the author is expressing an opinion, otherwise a reader cannot know that there is a judgment to be made. They must be entitled to accept as a fact something that is presented as a fact. It follows from this that we cannot accept Amendment 5. Although the Bill abolishes the common law, we can see no reason why the courts would depart from the current approach.
As I have said, a defendant who satisfies the first condition that the statement is one of opinion must also satisfy the second condition that the statement must indicate, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion. Amendment 4 would replace the word “basis” with the words “subject matter”. The provisions in the Bill reflect the test approved by the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph that,
“the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based”.
We consider that the word “basis” more accurately captures the essence of that test.
I hope that, on that basis, not only will the noble Lord withdraw this amendment, but that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, returns to these shores and reads Hansard, he will accept that he has had a good run for his money but that this is where the Government’s view is and where it will remain.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The further the Bill proceeds through this House, the more I am convinced that he would have made a superb Queen’s Counsel. Maybe as a result of his experience, that will be his next career.
I have no idea whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will be satisfied by the Minister’s answer. I cannot control or fetter him in any way. As I understand it, the Government’s position is that the second condition—
“that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion”—
was based on the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in Spiller v Joseph, in which he held that it is not a prerequisite of the defence that readers should be in a position to evaluate the comment for themselves. My understanding is that the Government’s position is that Clause 3(3) has been prepared on that basis, and that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is therefore unnecessary.
I see the Minister nodding. I hope that the ministerial nod, which I now record in Hansard, will cause the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to treat it as sufficient for his purposes and for those of Pepper v Hart. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 6, 7 and 9, I declare an interest. I am a member of PEN, the defender of writers’ rights, and have been briefed by it in the matter of public interest defence. However, I speak as a journalist of some four decades’ experience, schooled in what were at the time the exacting standards of BBC journalistic behaviour. If that sounds rather smug or perhaps even naïve, following the earlier debate on Leveson today in which enormous generalisations about the nature of the press and its wickedness passed unchallenged, I am aware and proud of the many high standards of journalism in this country, which has served in part to disclose the scoundrels in the industry whom we wish to call to account.
It is against that background that I seek to make the matter of public interest foolproof against capricious and expensive litigation and extended and opportunistic probing of journalists’ subjective motives.
The advantage of the small but significant changes proposed in these amendments is that the defence can still benefit from a subjective element that would require the court to consider the defendant’s state of knowledge at the time of publication, but would limit the claimant’s ability to spin a long and expensive case by probing the defendant’s motives. It is the decision to publish rather than the belief that is critical.
Matters of public interest require objective judgments reasonably arrived at. Journalists must be held to such judgments. The issue of subjective motives is simply not relevant to the case. As Lord Justice Dyson found in the case of Flood:
“The mere fact that an article is published because the journalist or publisher wants to hurt the subject of the article is not material to whether the publication is in the public interest”.
As long-serving practitioners in the area of defamation law have advised the Libel Reform Campaign, an opportunity on the part of an aggressive, outraged claimant to use the litigation to probe into, to prise open and to seek to expose as flawed the motives and good faith of a defendant, including editors and journalists, may be readily exploited. As a writer of fiction, I am well aware of the complexity of human motive and its expression, including my own. But as a journalist, I acknowledge that my examination and exposure of a story must answer the strictest tests of reason and objective judgment. The law must safeguard my right to do so. In leaving open the option of what I might believe and why, some major intentions of the Bill—to reduce the length of cases and their prohibitive expense so as to enable those without means to get redress—would be damaged. I support the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the Government are to be commended for having dropped the checklist in Clause 4 and for introducing instead the generic test, which I think was very much the test that Sir Brian Neill, as an adviser, recommended. There are three separate issues here. I am not sympathetic to widening the reasonable test to one which “could be” rather than “is”. I think that the objective test of reasonableness is right. I am sympathetic to substituting the word “decided” for “believed”. It is about whether what was decided was reasonable and, therefore, it seems to me that decided is a better word. It is not just I who say that: as has been said, it also has been said by leading libel counsel with experience.
I very much hope to persuade the Government to drop altogether Clause 4(2) on rapportage. Rapportage was introduced in my Private Member’s Bill originally—then, with good reason. But now that we have a good public interest test in Clause 4(1), I do not understand why we need the complexity of subsection (2), which I regard as difficult to understand or apply and unnecessary. Reading Clause 4(2) and asking oneself as a lawyer or a human being what it means makes my point. Clause 4(2) states:
“If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it”.
I think that I understand what is being said but I do not understand why it any longer needs to be in the Bill.
Rapportage, or reportage, covers cases in which the very fact that certain allegations are being made, or that a certain controversy exists, will constitute a matter of public interest. It is in the public interest to report what is being said, irrespective of whether it is true. In such cases, the defendant may be relieved of the normal obligation to seek appropriate verification of allegations before publishing them because the newspaper is a mere reporter. It is not adopting a defamatory position. In light of the amended Clause 4, there is no longer any need to make specific provision for rapportage because the elements of this subset of Reynolds privilege is covered by the general test of whether the statement published was on or part of a statement on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed that the publication was in the public interest.
Clause 4(2) as drafted is confusing and opaque. It has the potential to cause further confusion in the light of the redrafting of the rest of the clause. Clause 4(2) states that the court must,
“disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
The reference to taking “steps to verify” is there because in the checklist in the previous version, one factor was,
“whether the defendant took any other steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
However, as Clause 4(2)(g) has now gone from the Bill, there is no need to provide that the court should disregard it. To refer to taking “steps to verify” in subsection (2) is confusing.
I very much hope that we can get rid of this altogether. We do not need it. The general standard in Clause 4(1) is good enough to cover rapportage as well. I do not expect the Minister to give me other than a bleak and wintry reply this evening but I would like to think that by the time we come to Third Reading, the shoots of spring may shoot out of the earth.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, I support Amendment 7. I welcome the Government’s amendment to Clause 4. However, if the change from “believed” to “decided” guarantees that the checklist does not return and that authors will not be exposed to long and expensive cases in libel courts, I as a journalist think that that must be a good thing and I support it.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am grateful to the contributors to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, expressed the concerns of Sense about Science, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, spoke on behalf of, or was briefed by, PEN. These are organisations that I have listened to, and have had contact and dialogue with, throughout the two years’ gestation of the Bill. My aim remains to get as close as possible to the aspirations of those organisations. I suspect that in the end they will still say that we have fallen short but, particularly in Clause 4, we have tried to move in a direction that makes the law better and clearer. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his comment on our work on recasting it.
Amendment 8 is a government amendment that owes its authorship to the noble Lord. I am grateful for that and I hope that our acceptance of it is a demonstration of my willingness to listen as the Bill has proceeded. Our amendment provides for the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case in deciding whether the requirements for the public interest defence under Clause 4 to be satisfied have been met. This amendment responds to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in Committee that following government amendments to Clause 4 which, among other things, removed the list of factors for the courts to consider, there was a risk that the courts would simply invent a new checklist in interpreting and applying the new defence—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
In the context of that debate, I indicated that we did not believe that a provision requiring the court to consider all the circumstances was strictly necessary, because the courts would do this in any event. I also indicated that in developing a body of case law the courts may inevitably decide that particular factors are relevant in determining whether the defence has been established in a case. That remains our view. However, on reflection, I believe that it would be helpful to send a signal to the courts and practitioners to make clear the wish of Parliament that the new defence should be applied in as flexible a way as possible in light of the circumstances.
Amendments 6 and 7 would change the second limb of the test for establishing the public interest defence under Clause 4, whereby it would be satisfied if the defendant could show that he could reasonably have decided that publishing the statement was in the public interest, rather than that he reasonably believed that that was the case. This is intended to make the test more objective, as noble Lords have indicated. It reflects concern that the provision as currently drafted could lead to claimants seeking to introduce arguments relating to the defendant’s motive, which the courts have indicated is not relevant in relation to the common-law defence. While a claimant might seek to introduce arguments about the defendant’s motive, given the strong signal given by the courts in cases such as Flood to the effect that such considerations are usually irrelevant, we think it highly unlikely that the courts would entertain them.
Let me say here—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has indicated that he is listening carefully to this—that my absolute intention is for this part of the legislation to embrace and reflect Flood. We are concerned that adopting the wording of the amendment could shift the focus more towards what a hypothetical defendant might have known or what steps they might have taken. This would not reflect the Flood judgment. In Flood, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said that the courts were examining whatever the defendant,
“knew (and did not know) and whatever they had done (and had not done)”.
To paraphrase, the courts have to focus on what the defendant’s state of knowledge was and what steps they took prior to publication. We consider that the current wording in Clause 4(1) better captures this test and better reflects Flood.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Perhaps the Minister could be referred by his officials to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, actually said in paragraph 113 of the judgment, where he said that there was a single question, which was,
“could whoever published the defamation, given whatever they knew (and did not know) and whatever they had done (and had not done) to guard so far as possible against the publication of untrue defamatory material, properly have considered the publication in question to be in the public interest?”.
As I read that, it is very close to Amendment 6. I mention it because this is a question purely of what was meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated.
Lord McNally
I shall certainly draw that intervention to the attention of my officials. My briefing poses the question: does the new reasonable belief test reflect the current law or change it? It then goes on to say that our intention is to reflect the current law as articulated in cases such as Flood and we believe that it does so. It states that the test draws in particular on the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, approached the question in Flood. It then quotes exactly the same section of the judgment. As an innocent in this jungle of legal jargon and judgments, it does not surprise me that two sides of the case should quote the same judgment. We think that we have got it right and that what we have reflects the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We were doubly blessed in our Committee because we had both the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to give us wise legal advice. It is interesting that, in anticipating a question on that, my briefing should draw on exactly the same quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to defend what we have done as my noble friend Lord Lester claims for his amendment.
On Amendment 9, my noble friend Lord Phillips joined my noble friend Lord Lester in general castigation, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, gave them some qualified support. I have warned my noble friends to be wary of qualified support from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it leads them only into bad ways.
The amendment would remove Clause 4(2), which deals with reportage. “Reportage” has been described by the courts as,
“a convenient word to describe the neutral reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper”.
Subsection (2) is intended to catch the core elements of reportage as articulated by the courts. These are that where the defendant publishes an accurate and impartial account of a dispute between two or more parties, the defendant does not need to have verified the information reported before publication. This would not, however, absolve the defendant from the need to satisfy the court that, in all the other circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to believe that the publication was in the public interest.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the law has been struggling for a little while now, both here and across the world, in trying to find the correct solution to the question of whether, and the extent to which, website operators should be liable for defamation. At the moment, there is no bespoke provision dealing with website operators.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was passed to deal with the position of wholesalers, booksellers, newsagents and libraries. It provides a possible defence for website operators, but this defence failed in the case of Godfrey v Demon in 2001 when a website operator did not remove the posting immediately upon being aware of its defamatory content. There is also a potential answer provided by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, but there is doubt about the level of protection this provides for so-called hosting. There is equally considerable doubt as to what does or does not constitute publication. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on not simply ducking the issue but seeking to address specifically the position of the operators of websites in the Bill.
I also generally applaud the Bill for the reasons that have been given in the course of debates. However, I am concerned that in the provisions of Clause 5 it is too generous to website operators. There is no doubt in my mind that these provisions are the most significant in the Bill. As we were reminded in Committee, nowadays the internet is the main form of communication used by people under a certain age. Even e-mails are something of a thing of the past. So that we can be confident that what we provide by this clause is going to be central in relation to defamatory communications in future, it is particularly important that we get this right.
The terms of Clause 5 leave much to regulations. I would not relish the role of parliamentary draughtsmen in trying to come up with appropriate regulations. It is almost certain that whatever emerges will be out of date almost immediately because of the fast-moving nature of this form of communication. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, in paragraph 15 of its report on the Defamation Bill, was wise when it said:
“We consider that, as a matter of constitutional principle, the relevant provision should be to the greatest extent possible on the face of the Bill, so allowing full legislative amendment and debate. Moreover, only by seeing the proposed obligations to be imposed on operators will Parliament be able to consider whether the regime proposed is fit for purpose”.
That is why our amendment leaves much to the judge, so as to prevent obsolescence in the law.
The amendment attempts to provide a special defence to website operators, acknowledging the vulnerable position that they may be in but none the less specifically echoing the legislative language of the 1996 Act, placing the burden upon the defendant to show that he, the website operator, exercised reasonable care. What worries me about the current drafting is that the burden is very much on the claimant to surmount a series of hurdles before he can overcome the prima facie defence provided to the operator of a website. This seems to me to be getting the balance wrong and places the website operator in a unique position in the law of defamation.
When the Law Commission in 2002 examined the law of defamation on the internet, it came up with various recommendations, including amending the 1996 Act which is effectively what this amendment does. It also recommended that the industry should adopt a code of practice. My noble friend Lord Phillips and I think that is critical, and it is unfortunate that no such code of practice has emerged. As our amendment is framed, it would place a considerable onus on website operators in general to arrive at a code of practice which, if sensible and reasonable and followed in an individual case, would provide a solid defence to claims in defamation.
There is I think consensus that we should be trying to keep defamation claims out of court, if at all possible. The position after this Bill becomes law means only a well funded claimant with a serious complaint can even dream of bringing proceedings. In respect of that rather small risk, it is clear that website operators can take out insurance in respect of which only modest premiums would be payable. That seems to me a small price to pay for the protection of those who are genuinely aggrieved at defamatory content being posted on a website. In Grand Committee I gave the example of a teacher being accused of being a paedophile—almost certainly fatal to their career and their life.
Nobody should under-estimate the power exercised by website operators. I was a member of the Joint Committee subjecting the Data Communications Bill to prelegislative scrutiny last year, and we heard a great deal of evidence from website operators. It was impressive in terms of the quality, and no doubt expense, of those assigned to advance their position. They did not want to have to store any information which was not commercially useful to them even if it helped government agencies to track down and prosecute criminals. Much was made of their users’ rights to privacy. This is something of an irony since the information that users of websites provide is of course extremely valuable commercially. Website operators now say that it is very inconvenient to take down potentially defamatory material and that it compromises free speech. It is perhaps a little easy to deploy free speech in this context, but let us not get too misty eyed about this in the light of the careless and often ill thought out comments that find themselves on websites.
I fear that this clause as currently framed favours the powerful—namely, the website operators—who have a strong lobby, as opposed to the much less powerful, who might be defamed in the future. Our amendment does something to try and redress the balance. On considering the respective positions of the very powerful and the almost powerless, I know which side I am on.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I have the misfortune to be opposed to the amendment, and I shall try very briefly to explain why this is so. As I said in Grand Committee, there is across the world a fundamental difference between on the one hand the Chinese and, on the other, the United States. The Chinese position on the world wide web is to create the great firewall of China and the Chinese intranet and to do whatever it can to be able to censor the use of the web by dissidents of one kind or another. The position of the United States, ever since Bill Clinton’s statute, gives an absolute immunity to United States internet service providers. The European compromise is contained in the e-commerce directive, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, and seeks to strike a fair balance between freedom of speech and personal privacy and reputation in the structure of the regulations. Although it is vague, it is fairly balanced.
The world wide web is, on the one hand, of vast benefit not only to website operators but to the public and the citizens of the world in terms of free expression, which it enhances. On the other hand, the web creates much more capacity to damage reputation and personal privacy. That is the other side of the story. The puzzle is, given that this is a transnational, worldwide problem, what can any one country do to try to strike a fair balance? How can we devise a system that will encourage operators such as Google and Yahoo in this respect, given that they have no particular commercial interest in keeping up anything they post which is controversial? For example, if they post criticisms of Ruritania as a corrupt, disgraceful and oppressive Government, and then a threat is made to them to take it down, they have no commercial interest in keeping it up, even though we as citizens have every interest in their doing so. That is the free speech side of the argument.
I perfectly agree that one must do what one can to provide effective remedies in privacy and defamation claims. I admire the boldness of this amendment, which seeks to take out of the Bill altogether subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 5—that is, the entire carefully formulated procedure, including, in subsection (5), the regulations and what they may provide—and to put in place instead a structure which it is suggested will tip the balance better in favour of the claimant. I will not take the time of the House in going through that except to say that the more I read the burdens that the amendment would place on the operator, the more unbalanced I think they are in what they seek to do.
Furthermore, words such as “reasonable care”, with the burden being on the operator, or,
“did not know and had no reason to believe”,
comprise burdensome tests. I fully realise why my noble friends think that that wording is better than what is in the Bill. However, I do not think that it is. I think that it would give rise to litigation and would unduly fetter freedom of expression not for the website operators—I do not mind about them—but for us, the people who receive information and ideas on the web.
I like what the Government have done which I think strikes a perfectly fair balance. It is a good scheme. I am glad that they will introduce regulations. I very much hope that they will not accept this amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have not taken part in debates on the Bill so far, so I shall be brief. However, I want to say a word or two in support of Amendment 10 in the names of my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Faulks. I do so on the non-legalistic issue of equality of arms, which I do not believe currently exists on my reading of the Bill and the comments that my noble friends have made. There is an important issue to be addressed here. Rather to my shame, I had not until recently realised that the Bill provided an opportunity to address this growing challenge.
I have raised this issue before at Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on 8 November 2011. I said then:
“It is a small issue, but one that is growing in importance. In future, how are we going to ensure the accuracy of information placed on social networking websites and who will be responsible for this? This is a freedom which is increasingly going to need protecting. … A situation can now arise where people and their businesses can be irredeemably damaged by completely inaccurate statements that are put up on these websites and for which they can obtain no redress. … People are entitled to some clear way of challenging these statements and, where appropriate, of obtaining redress. I would be interested to hear whether my noble friend”—
that was the noble Lord, Lord Henley—
“has any policy developments under consideration to deal with this issue, one that is surely going to increase in importance in the future”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; cols. 187-88.]
I am afraid that answer came there none. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friends have taken up the cudgels to try to achieve a better equality of arms, as I said.
My noble friend Lord Faulks referred to the power of website operators. I have seen the power of website operators in interviewing talented young people; I can think of one or two who had disobliging statements posted about them which have had a very deleterious effect on their career. The website operators—this is perhaps more the case now than it used to be—have not been too quick to try to remove this information and cleanse the websites.
As I was preparing my speech on the aforementioned Second Reading debate, a case arose of a Portsmouth plumber whose business had been completely wrecked because he was accused of being a paedophile. It turned out that the statement had been posted by a competitor firm. Holiday companies and hotels have been damaged in the same way. However, I have to admit that on certain occasions people have written bullish accounts of their own hotel in an attempt to increase trade.
It was in connection with this last category that I mentioned in my Second Reading speech the role of the website TripAdvisor. A short 24 hours passed before it asked for a meeting. Its approach in discussions with me showed the challenges the Government face—challenges which I think they have not so far tackled but which my noble friends’ amendment does.
First, the TripAdvisor representatives argued that there was no problem and that their customer surveys showed a high level of customer satisfaction. Secondly, when pressed about the response to those who were unhappy, even if they were a small minority, it seemed that for every solution there was a problem: a problem of jurisdiction, given the international nature of website operators, as my noble friend Lord Lester said; a problem of identification—who posts what about whom; a problem of competitive disadvantage as a result of a checking system which could be portrayed as intrusive; and, finally, when all else failed, a problem of data protection, the reasons for this being slightly less clear to me. I said to the representatives that in my view there was an issue of increasing public concern and that the industry—if that is the right collective noun for website operators—needed to agree to establish, publicise and enforce a code of practice which had a suitable element of representation of the public interest in any disciplinary procedures.
So, in enthusiastically supporting this entire amendment, I particularly support its provision in subsection (2) regarding the value to be placed on the defence of having an anti-defamation code of practice.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Allan of Hallam
The right way is to keep Clause 5 as it is currently drafted. The Government have done a good job in drafting the scope of this defence as an additional measure to those currently available under the e-commerce directive. It makes sense to have this additional defence. My concern is that Amendment 11 would be an additional burden and further restrict the defence only to websites that have the ability to post a notice in this way. I imagine that a significant number of websites which could avail themselves of the defence in Clause 5 would not be able to do so if there were a requirement to post a notice. I can also imagine instances when such a requirement would be abused. It makes sense to leave it to the website operator, once they have received a complaint, to deal with it under Clause 5 as it is. I also think that it would be sufficient to encourage website operators to post notices when things are contested and they believe that a notice would fit with their environment and be helpful. There are instances when you need to mandate something and instances when you want to encourage it as a model of good practice. In the context of notices, the mandated option is wrong and the good practice option is correct.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Having spent about three and a half years attempting to reform the law of defamation, and in the light of what happened on the first amendment today, my overriding objective is to get the Bill through. I want to make it clear that I shall not be moving any of the amendments in my name this evening. I say that now in case anyone else, in their sad lives, wishes to do so. Having thought about it, I take the view that the regime as it stands, with regulations, will be perfectly capable of accommodating some of these issues properly and that we are now being overcareful and overprescriptive. I know that it is very unusual for a member of the Bar to indicate that he is under a decree of self-imposed silence, but that is my position.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam said. He will forgive me if I say that, coupled with what he said in Committee, there seems to be a leitmotif in his objections to amendments that really the industry is too big to control. That has echoes of the banks being too big to fail. The truth is that they are enormous organisations and with that enormity comes enormous power and the ability to inflict enormous damage on occasion.
I like the purport of Amendment 11. It seems right that, while the operator is considering what to do in the longer term, a notice of complaint should be there so that anybody reading the original defamation will see the complaint alongside it. I also understand some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam. Perhaps in responding the Minister will tell us whether under Clause 5(5) it will be possible through regulations to introduce a regime for posting complaints and so on that would be practical in the variety of circumstances to which my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam alluded. That would seem to be the obvious way to go: to take the time to work out a provision that works for all the different types of platform, and at the same time plays fair both by the operator and the complainant.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, although two days have passed, this is the first debate following that on Amendment 31, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton. After we had adjourned, a thought occurred to me which I probably should have put on the record in that debate. In all truth, it did not occur to me then; but it has since, so I wish to do that. In col. GC239 of Tuesday’s Hansard, in summing up his amendment, the noble Lord listed a number of institutions with which he had been in communication in framing it. One of them was the Institute of Physics, which he said has 45,000 members. It was not until I was on my way home that I realised I should probably have said that I am an honorary member of the Institute of Physics. I suspect that does not even remotely influence anything but, for the record, I make that clear.
As regards Amendment 39, I want to point out that it was drawn to the Joint Committee’s attention that when a constituent speaks to a Member of Parliament, that Member, if he then relays the information given to him or her in the House, has privilege as far as Parliament is concerned. However, there was a question mark as to whether the communication between the constituent and the Member of Parliament was also covered by privilege. It seemed to the Joint Committee that it was extremely important that it should be covered by privilege because at the very heart of our democratic process is the concept and the reality that a Member of Parliament acts on behalf of his or her constituents. That ought not to be mitigated or reduced by pressures that would rule out things that the constituent could say to his or her Member of Parliament.
We were also told that the Government intended to bring forward legislation on privilege. We all understood that and the committee took the unanimous view that—how do I put this delicately?—this might be a long, drawn-out process, which started with ministerial statements some time ago that the Government intended to legislate in this area, and various steps have been taken along that path. There was no great confidence that we would soon reach the end of that path. Unanimously, the committee decided to recommend to the House and the Government to clarify the position and to remove any doubt that what is said between a constituent and his or her Member of Parliament should also be covered by privilege. The argument was raised by one witness that these days you cannot necessarily trust every Member of Parliament to behave appropriately in such circumstances, to be careful in the use of what would probably be highly contentious information and to use it in such a way that would be in keeping with the well established standards of the House of Commons.
The Joint Committee took the view that an occasional misuse of information by an individual Member of Parliament was not sufficiently important to offset the fundamental issue that we were addressing. Our thoughts are encapsulated in this amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment and what I will say briefly has some relevance to my later Amendments 43 and 44, dealing with parliamentary privilege. I am very sympathetic to the idea explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that we should not wait for some future legislation as a result of the consideration of parliamentary privilege generally, but that where there is an issue that properly falls within the scope of defamation and nothing else, we should take advantage in this legislation to make the necessary amendments. I regard this as one necessary amendment for the reasons given by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill.
The Government stated in their response that this was best left to the forthcoming Green Paper and draft parliamentary privilege Bill. The Green Paper concluded that while some forms of correspondence between constituents were already protected by common law qualified privilege, it would be inappropriate to extend qualified privilege to all forms of correspondence as it would run the risk of potentially encouraging correspondence to MPs intended to circumvent court orders and damage the privacy or reputation of third parties. The Government expressed the view the it would better to continue to enable the courts to determine the boundaries of privilege in individual cases.
I understand that and it is an objection to a wider issue than liability and defamation procedures. It is all about breach of privacy and contempt of court. However, given that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, seeks only to provide qualified privilege in defamation proceedings and that there seems to be agreement that it is already covered by the common law in appropriate circumstances, I see no good reason in principle to oppose it. I note that the Libel Reform Campaign supports it. It suggested adding “Private” at the start of the amendment to distinguish between letters and e-mail and social media.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Browne, I thank the Minister—and, even more perhaps, his officials who did the hard work—for bringing so promptly to us the response on Rutland. Perhaps I should declare an interest as someone who is married to a member of the Institute of Physics.
I support the thrust of the amendment, but will the Minister, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, clarify whether it would cover all letters from MPs to constituents? We had a case locally where an MP attached to a letter a copy of a letter that they had received from another constituent—a row was going on between two constituents, as often happens. Would attaching that letter be similarly covered by privilege if it was then given, as it was, to the press? However, we undoubtedly support the intention of the amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as an afterthought on my noble friend Lord Mawhinney’s approach to amendments, I can confirm that officials do wonderful work. However, his approach also reminds me of a story that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, told. When he was Minister of Defence, a man came to him with a solution to the Russian submarine menace: you boil the North Sea, and when the water has evaporated you can see where the submarines are on the seabed. Denis said to the man, “That’s fine, but how do I boil the North Sea?”. The man said, “Look, Mr Healey, I’ve had a good idea. Surely you and your officials should work out the practicalities”. That is just a passing thought.
I understand why the amendment has been tabled. I hope that my reply will clarify matters; I am not sure, given the presence of some very informed noble and learned friends. What I say at this Dispatch Box is of assistance to judges and courts when they make such decisions. I think so anyway, as a non-lawyer. Is it called Pepper v Hart? You see, I am learning on the job here.
Clause 7(4) extends the provision in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 1996 on qualified privilege attaching to information published by legislatures, Governments and authorities exercising government functions. The changes ensure that the provisions also cover fair and accurate summaries of material and that the scope of the defence is extended to the relevant publications no matter where in the world they occur.
Amendment 39A amends the definition of governmental functions used in subsection (4) and in the 1996 Act to include a reference to local authorities as well as to police functions. We do not believe that this is necessary. We consider that local authorities are already covered by the reference to,
“any authority performing governmental functions”.
The Defamation Act 1952 covered information published,
“by or on behalf of any government department, officer of state, local authority, or chief officer of police”.
The 1996 Act was intended to extend this coverage. We are in no doubt that the reference to,
“any authority performing governmental functions”,
should be read as embracing the specific bodies referred to in the 1952 Act.
There is no indication that the absence of a specific reference to local authorities has caused any difficulty in practice. However, to take the specific point, we also believe that the devolved administrations would fall within the term “legislature”, which is used in the amendment to the 1996 Act made by subsection (4) of Clause 7 and elsewhere in relation to qualified privilege.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
It is unusual to speak after the Minister, but there is nothing to prevent any noble Lord speaking.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the deputy chairman. I am sorry to be unusual, but I normally am. Not only do I agree with what has been said but, in my mind, extending statutory qualified privilege in the schedule is one of the most useful things that the Bill does. We are dealing there with clearly prescribed situations, of which this is one, where, if the press gives a fair and accurate report, it will be protected, as will the public interest. The fact that this has been extended extremely broadly, as my Bill sought to do, whereas the 1996 Act did not do so, is a matter for congratulation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I was going to use two words I now know I should not: they were simply “thank you”. I am not allowed to say that. I thank the Minister for his answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I had not expected to need to reply about press conferences but, in the light of my noble friend Lord Phillips’s intervention, I better had. This question was dealt with by the House of Lords in a case that I was involved in called McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers, 2001 2 Appeal Cases, 277; the noble Lord, Lord Bew, may remember it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
What happened was that a soldier was found guilty of murder for, I think, killing a woman at a roadblock in Northern Ireland and sentenced to imprisonment. He was represented by a firm of solicitors in Northern Ireland. A group of senior military men had a meeting in a castle in, I think, Yorkshire in order to accuse the solicitors of negligence in the way that they had gone about defending the soldier. The meeting in the castle was open to the public, but very few members of the public were in fact able to get in. The law firm sued for libel and the defence was that it was a public meeting and therefore covered by statutory qualified privilege. The argument was that it was not really a public meeting but a press conference; they gave out a press statement and it was in a castle.
Lord Bingham gave the lead judgment, making it clear on free-speech grounds that the press are the eyes and ears of the public, and that where the public cannot get in easily on an occasion like that and the press can, the press must be free to make a fair and accurate report—it must be fair and accurate—of what is alleged at the press conference, which is to be treated as a public meeting.
On Article 10 grounds, the House of Lords clarified the meaning of “public meeting” to include press conferences. In fact my memory, although I may be wrong, is that the Faulks committee in 1975 had recommended that press conferences should be included. So I have no difficulty at all with the express words in the Bill making clear that it covers press conferences anywhere in the world, for the reasons given by the House of Lords, per Lord Bingham, in that case. My difficulty is with what is to be done with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I was looking at the Joint Committee report about it. Paragraph 48 states:
“The draft Bill goes some way towards tackling this problem by extending qualified privilege to include fair and accurate reports of what is said at a ‘scientific or academic conference’. We welcome this development, provided the conference is reputable”.
The report goes on to deal with peer-reviewed articles and recommends extending it to peer-reviewed articles in scientific or academic journals. Then, as the noble Lords, Lord Bew, and Lord Mawhinney, have done, it explains the definitional problems, and towards the end it recommends,
“that the Government prepares guidance on the scope of this new type of statutory qualified privilege in consultation with the judiciary and other interested parties”.
As I read this, the Joint Committee are saying that it is a good idea, but there are definitional problems, so include it, but with proper guidance.
Lord McNally
I doubt that. We are moving the extra line to where a company has made a decision to change its auditors, which will be reported to the members of the company. There may be a number of reasons for that, but the report will be suitable for the annual general meeting, and other issues, personal or related to performance, may be covered by it. As I have said, in a number of these areas, we are drawing lines. Where there is a relationship between a company and its auditors, I just wonder whether it would be entirely conducive to good working relations between them if a reason for dismissal which was extremely damaging to the auditors was privileged in this way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I cannot understand that. We are dealing with a public listed company; we are dealing with the resignation or removal of directors, which is a very serious step; we are dealing with qualified privilege, quite rightly, to give a fair and accurate report of that. The auditors are officers of the company performing a vital role. If they are mixed up with some wrongdoing that needs to be reported, we are dealing not with some private, contractual, sensitive matter, but with what is in the report to the shareholders about the public listed company. That is already there. I cannot therefore see any good reason for not including the auditors in that. It is nothing to do with an ordinary, private commercial relationship, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
Lord McNally
I will reflect on that but I am also very concerned and do not want to enter a field regarding the professional relationship between auditors—or, perhaps I may respectfully suggest, lawyers—and companies, where there is a barn door left open. I understand, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that the intention of the proposal is to give protection. I am willing to reflect on whether where we have drawn the line is exactly right, and I will listen to expert opinion in this Committee. As a layman, I also feel a slight tingle between the shoulder blades about where we are going in terms of the relationship of professions such as auditors and lawyers with their clients. I, too, would like advice on these matters.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
We are not supporting the amendment. We are urging the Government to accept that the amendment is not necessary because the matter is well within its scope.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Before this mini debate concludes, I would just say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester about the particularity of the post of auditor. It is not like the lawyers of the company. They are not officials of the company; they have a unique role, and I simply put it to the Committee that they should be on the same footing vis-à-vis defamation as the directors. They are not as it stands because of the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred. Clause 7 refers only to privilege extending to documents circulated by the auditors of the company, but proposed new sub-paragraph (3), where the amendment would bite, refers to documents circulated by the company to the members of the company. At the moment, it gives qualified privilege to those documents vis-à-vis appointments, and so on, of directors but not of auditors. I am saying that it should be there, but it can be reflected on.
“Reports etc of certain Parliamentary matters protected by absolute privilege
(1) The following are absolutely privileged—
(a) a fair and accurate report of proceedings in Parliament;(b) a fair and accurate report of anything published by or on the authority of Parliament; and(c) a fair and accurate copy of, extract from or summary of anything published by or on the authority of Parliament.(2) The court must stay any proceedings where the defendant shows that—
(a) the proceedings relate to the publication of anything that falls within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1); or(b) the proceedings seek to prevent or postpone the making of any such publication.(3) This section also has effect in relation to the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly (and any reference to Parliament is to be read as a reference to the Assembly in question).
(4) The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 is repealed.”
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
In speaking to Amendment 43, it may be convenient for me to speak also to Amendment 44 as they both deal with privilege. If that is not convenient, I shall speak to Amendment 43 only, but they are grouped together.
There is one defect in Amendment 43, which is that subsection (4) should not repeal the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 for reasons that I shall explain.
I know that the Minister will say in his reply, “Leave it all to the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege”, but I hope that these amendments will eventually persuade the Government that that is not a convenient and sensible course. That will be particularly true when we come to the Neil Hamilton affair and Clause 13, which was being dealt with 13 years ago by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. There has never been a more authoritative committee, crowded as it was with jurists former law officers of the Crown and with evidence given by every conceivable expert on parliamentary privilege. The idea that we should now revisit what that committee said about Clause 13 of the Defamation Act is not sensible.
However, before I come to that, I need to deal with Amendment 43. The amendment would have the effect of reinstating Clause 7 of the Bill that I produced to provide absolute privilege in defamation proceedings for fair and accurate reports of proceedings in Parliament. Section 1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 prevents any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of a report, paper, votes or proceedings published by order of either House. Section 2 confers similar protection on copies of such publications. Section 3 confers a lesser degree of protection on any extract from or abstract of such publications, which must be published in good faith and without malice.
Newspaper reports which are not taken from Hansard are also protected at common law. The case of Wason v Walter, 1868-69, 4 Queen’s Bench, 73, established that by analogy with reports of court proceedings, a publisher of a report of a parliamentary debate is protected at common law from actions for defamation. If the whole debate is published, the protection is absolute. If less than the whole is published, the protection is qualified by the requirement that it is published without malice, as stated in the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege report 1999, paragraph 356.
Court proceedings now enjoy absolute privilege under Section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996. Section 15 confers qualified privilege on reports of the proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world, as well as material published by or on the authority of a Government or legislature anywhere in the world, which we have just discussed. The report must be fair and accurate and published without malice and in the public interest.
Wason and Walter was decided by analogy with the privilege afforded to court proceedings. Chief Justice Cockburn said that given the,
“paramount public and national importance that proceedings of the Houses of Parliament shall be communicated to the public … to us it seems clear that the principles on which the publication of reports of proceedings of Courts of Justice have been held to be privileged apply to the reports of Parliamentary proceedings. The analogy between the two cases is in every respect complete”.
The same protection should therefore be conferred on fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings as applies to court proceedings.
In 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, described the 1840 Act as being,
“drafted in a somewhat impenetrable early Victorian style”.
It recommended that the,
“protection given to the media by the 1840 Act and the common law itself should be retained.
We consider, further, that the statutory protection would be more transparent and accessible if it were included in a modern statute, whose language and style would be easier to understand than the 1840 Act. We recommend that the 1840 Act, as amended, should be replaced with a modern statute”.
The 1840 Act was considered more recently by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its report Press Standards, Privacy and Libel, at paragraphs 94 to 102. Referring to the 2009 case between Trafigura and the Guardian newspaper, that committee concluded that Parliamentary Questions tabled regarding the case were clearly covered by these provisions and would not therefore be covered by the then existing super-injunction which prevented publication of any reference to the case. That interpretation was challenged by the firm of Carter-Ruck, acting for Trafigura. I do not think that I need to go through that, but the committee concluded:
“The free and fair reporting of proceedings in Parliament is a cornerstone of a democracy. In the UK, publication of fair extracts of reports of proceedings in Parliament made without malice are protected by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 … They cannot be fettered by a court order. However, the confusion over this issue has caused us the very gravest concern that this freedom is being undermined. We therefore repeat previous recommendations from the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that the Ministry of Justice replace the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 with a clear and comprehensible modern statute”.
Neither committee specifically addressed the question of whether publication of reports of parliamentary proceedings should be absolute or remain qualified. The approach taken in my Bill was endorsed by the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill on the basis that it is of fundamental importance that proceedings in Parliament can be reported upon freely by the press to ensure that people can discover what is being said and done by elected representatives on their behalf. In paragraph 51 of its report, my noble friend Lord Mawhinney’s committee said:
“We recommend adding a provision to the Bill which provides the press with a clear and unfettered right to report on what is said in Parliament and with the protection of absolute privilege for any such report which is fair and accurate”.
The Government’s response left the issue to the Parliamentary Privilege Green Paper. I will not take further the time of the Committee by reading any of that, but some of the issues which they raise have nothing to do with defamation, but with privacy and contempt of court. I accept that the issues raised in their Green Paper on contempt and privacy may be best dealt with in more detail by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege or the Law Commission in its review, now pending, on the law of contempt of court. However, none of that is any good reason for not giving effect to what the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Nicholls, recommended 13 years ago, what the Commons committee has recommended and what the Joint Committee on this Bill has recommended. That is three committees over more than 13 years concentrating only on defamation, not on privacy or contempt.
Lord McNally
My Lords, just to give some sense of momentum on this, I can tell your Lordships that the Joint Committee that has been established on parliamentary privilege is asked to report by 25 April 2013.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. As always, he made an extremely well informed and well researched contribution, but can I just put to the Committee a political reality? We are dealing with probably one of the most sensitive areas of the functioning of our parliamentary democracy; that is, parliamentary privilege. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell of the Houses of Parliament in an area, which is so sensitive and so important, allowing this Committee and this Bill to make decisions which go ahead of what the Joint Committee is going to do.
As the Government’s Green Paper pointed out, the point of parliamentary privilege is not defamation or what is published in the newspapers; it is the right of Members of Parliament to conduct their business in Parliament. That is why parliamentarians are so careful and so jealous about how we should handle this.
Therefore, I am sorry to say that I can give my noble friend no other response than the one that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney: that the Joint Committee is now in being. Certainly, my noble friend’s contribution today will be well worth reading by that committee, but it is a matter for that committee and I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful. I learnt this appalling word from Europe, comitology, which is the study of committees, and I have gone too much into the past committees. Although I am not surprised by the Minister’s reply, I am deeply disappointed by it, because what my amendments seek to do is extraordinarily important but modest. The first would clarify the 1840 Act on a completely non-controversial issue so far as that Act, which is all about reporting proceedings in Parliament, is concerned. The second amendment would remove what everyone has always agreed was a gross anomaly. We apparently will have to wait for yet another committee to look at this, but I am liable to return to it on Report, because I am not satisfied by the stonewalling. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I was not proposing to speak to this amendment at all but it seems to me that there is an enormous distinction to be made between person A and person B as to which publication one is being denied by the Limitation Act the opportunity of proceeding in respect of. It is, with respect, not only whether the second publisher may be financially worth suing as opposed to the first publisher which must be catered to in this provision, but surely also the standing and reputation of the publisher. One can very well imagine a situation in which one simply would not be bothered to be defamed by person A because that person’s standing and reputation was itself so low and yet a republication by somebody of real repute and standing would trigger one’s intent to sue. So if this Amendment 44A is to be accepted, that sort of thing should be catered to, whether under the provisions of subsection 4, with a specific provision about material difference lying on occasion in the character and position, financially and otherwise, of the publisher, or in some other way, I leave to others to consider.
As to the other amendments, I agree with the view that Amendments 45, 46 and 47 are a simpler and more elegant fashion of expressing those provisions. As to Amendment 47B and the proposed insertion of new Section 5A, I am neutral as to how desirable it is to spell out these considerations which shall not be regarded as materially different. I would respectfully suggest that the expression should be not,
“shall not be deemed to be”—
it is not a question of deeming—but
“shall not be regarded as”,
but that is a very minor point indeed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
On my noble friend Lord Phillips’s Amendments 45, 46 and 47, I hardly ever argue with parliamentary counsel as being defective in the way that they approach their work. With respect to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I do not think that it is an improvement to save two words by twice repeating,
“or a section of the public”,
when it is clear beyond argument in Clause 8(2) that protection to the public includes publication to a section of the public. I therefore oppose what Lord Wilberforce once described as “the austerity of tabulated legalism”.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, this whole amendment is concerned with protection against those domiciled abroad using their wealth and remoteness to chill freedom of expression in the UK. It could be that the wording is clumsy. I will come back to that. It is intended to be applicable equally to wealthy businesses and religious cults. My concern is with the latter.
Many in this House will be aware of the power and influence of powerful cult leaders who claim deep religious insights denied to the rest of us. They often attract and get large donations from rich businessmen and media celebrities, which they use to acquire property and business interests, and often to fund expensive lifestyles. More worryingly, they also prey on the superstitious and vulnerable, promising to use their influence with God to help people meet life’s challenges or to cure incurable diseases. In one case, a cult leader got a woman to sign over her property in return for a promised cure for cancer. Sadly, the woman died soon after. I believe that it is in the public interest that such activities are exposed.
There are many more such cases in which superstitious and vulnerable people are deprived, sometimes of virtually all that they have. The power and attraction of such organisations is totally dependent on uncritical acceptance of their claims to special powers; they use their might and muscle to silence those who, in the public interest, dare to challenge them. Many such organisations are domiciled in the subcontinent of India, or in the United States and Canada, and use their wealth and power to stifle any public-interest questioning of their activities. They also use their remoteness from the UK to avoid paying the costs of any finding against them.
There are many examples. I will give one of a young journalist, who questioned the practices of an Indian sect and found himself in a ruinous lawsuit. After three nightmare years facing financial ruin, he eventually won his case but has no prospect of recovering some £50,000 spent in doing so, as this would involve further protracted litigation in Indian courts. The attitude of such foreign-based litigants is very much, “Heads I win, tails you lose”. It might be that the amendment’s wording is clumsy but its intention is very clear. I believe it will significantly deter those who use power and remoteness to intimidate those in the UK who are genuinely concerned about their activities..
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I shall speak briefly only to Amendment 50A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, to bring him good news as to why it is not needed because we have something else in place. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was Lord Chancellor we dealt with a Bill whose Title was something like the “private international law miscellaneous provisions Bill”—the team behind the Minister will know its correct name. I was concerned that people in countries such as Singapore or Malaysia, which have draconian libel laws and use them to suppress dissent and unpopular views without, I am afraid, any proper respect for the right to free speech, would be able to bring those laws into this country and enforce them here in libel proceedings.
I was concerned about that because the EU was in the process of harmonising tort law, including libel law, and seeking to abolish what is known as the double actionability rule of common law, which provides that if a wrong is committed in another country—a road accident in Gibraltar, for example—the victim could bring a claim for negligence in this country based on what had been done in Gibraltar, but only if it was actionable under the law of this country as well as Gibraltar’s. In other words, domestic British legal standards had to apply and be satisfied. Under the EU harmonisation programme, the danger was that if you abolished the double actionability rule it would mean that someone in one of these other countries could bring in their bad, repressive libel law and rely upon it in this country.
Of course, President Obama did precisely the same thing that I am about to say that we did to the Malaysia and Singapore. In that Act, we kept the double actionability rule in place but only for libel proceedings. The effect is that the Defamation Bill, when it becomes law, will provide the British standard; anybody coming from another country and seeking to use the defamation law coercively will have, under the double actionability rule, to satisfy the standard anyway of the Defamation Act, including the Defamation Act being read with the constitutional and conventional right to free speech. So there will already be very strong reasons in public policy why such a person will not get very far if they seek abusively to bring libel proceedings in those circumstances.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I shall explain in case I was not clear. I was trying to say that all the defences—the requirement of serious harm, the public interest defence, qualified privilege—will be able to be used as a shield against an unscrupulous claimant, and the double actionability rule would require that too.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for the way in which he has just presented the amendment. I do not have the Booksellers Association as my client, although I did some time ago meet it in order to discuss the problem which has been eloquently described. I have, however, acted for Amazon US and Amazon UK and I would like briefly, because it harps back in a way to Clause 5 and the internet, to link that with what we are now discussing because it is quite important. If I walk into Daunt Books in London to buy a book, I am reasonably clear that if the bookseller has no reason to believe that the book is defamatory, the bookseller would have a defence under the defence of innocent dissemination as it was before 1996 and probably under Section 1 of the 1996 Act as well. I agree that there is some lack of clarity about the effect of Section 1 on the common-law defence in that situation.
The problem becomes much more acute for the international bookseller who is selling via the internet. The case that I was once in—thank goodness it never led to an argument because it was settled—is a very good example. A book published in the United States completely wrongly and in a defamatory way attributes to police officers in Northern Ireland the killing of Catholics. It is completely disgraceful and defamatory. So the police officers go against the author who is made bankrupt. They go against the publisher who is made bankrupt, so they have no recourse at all. So they go against the international bookseller on the basis that it has sold a defamatory book on the internet. When we buy that on our computers online, whether from Amazon US or Amazon UK, that is an act of publication. There is therefore publication by the bookseller of something that is defamatory and therefore Amazon is liable. Amazon, shipping the book from its warehouse in California, has absolute immunity under US law. Amazon does not have immunity under UK law, nor should it, and the same applies to Amazon UK.
The practical problem is: what is the position of the international bookseller? It can try to rely on Section 1 of the 1996 Act. The problem with that is that it is quite narrow and very unclear as to how it applies. It can try to rely on the e-commerce directive and to give new meaning to Section 1 of the 1996 Act. It can try to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to give clarity as well. But all I can say is that some years ago I had a merry time—well paid—in trying to work out the answer to the puzzle that I just described.
If something like Amendment 50C were included, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is quite right in saying how difficult it is to clarify some of this, it would have benefit not only for the home-grown London bookseller but for the international bookseller in trying to resolve what would otherwise be extremely complicated problems that I have probably failed properly to explain.
Lord Mawhinney
If peer-review is one of the principles that we want to hang on to, combating chilling effect should be another that we want to hang on to. I have no idea, and I am not competent to judge, whether the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right and precise, but combating chilling effect ought to be deemed to be so.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, there can be few occasions, particularly at five past five on a Thursday afternoon, when one feels entitled to tell, so to speak, a story from one’s own experience. However, I believe this to be just such an occasion.
Over a quarter of a century ago, I tried, with a jury, the case of the late Robert Maxwell suing Private Eye. It was a defamation case. The burden of the central complaint that Maxwell was making was that Private Eye had published a piece which insinuated that he had tried, by means of free holidays and the like, to bribe the then leader of the Labour Party—Neil Kinnock—to recommend him for a peerage: plus ça change. The case was opened—as all these cases invariably are—at great length and the witnesses started to go into the witness box. I came back from lunch on the fourth day to find a note from the jury which read, “Please, sir, can you tell us what a peerage is?”. On the fourth day of a case all about peerages they did not know what that meant, which did not increase my faith in, and admiration for, juries.
A later case over which I presided in the Court of Appeal was that of Grobbelaar, who secured a very large award from the jury—I cannot remember the exact amount but I think that it was about £100,000—on the basis that he had been libelled by a newspaper which had accused him of match fixing. Noble Lords will remember that he was a Zimbabwean who I think played for Liverpool at the time. We eventually held—we were upheld in this by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords—that that was a perverse award. Again, that was not greatly to the credit of juries. Therefore, I confess that I am very strongly opposed to juries in defamation cases, not least when important people—celebrities—are involved. Juries tend to be mesmerised by celebrity. Indeed, that is true of defamation cases and there are many other instances—it is perhaps invidious to mention them—where that can be seen to be so in the libel context and perhaps more widely.
Under Clause 11 as drafted, defamation cases will be tried without a jury unless a court orders otherwise. The matter is left to the general discretion of the court. Obviously, only very exceptionally would it be thought a good idea to have a jury trial with all the disadvantages of such a trial in terms of length, expense, unreasoned judgment and all the rest of it. If I may respectfully say so, the problem as I see it in this proposed amendment is that it is, first, too prescriptive and, secondly, may well encourage the use of jury trial. In the original report of the Joint Committee, it was recognised in paragraph 25 that it would be undesirable to restrict this discretion—that is, the court’s general discretion—although it is fair to say that it went on to state that it should be possible to outline general principles. The general principle later referred to was that the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised,
“should generally be limited to cases involving senior figures in public life and ordinarily only where their public credibility is at stake”.
The first problem with the proposed amendment is that it limits the discretion of the court because it states that:
“A court may only order a trial with jury”,
in this class of case, and there may be others. For that reason, it also raises in acute form the definition problem of deciding who is properly to be regarded as a senior figure in public life and when that person’s credibility is at stake. Perhaps more fundamentally, the amendment raises the very concerns that the Government in their response to the Joint Committee report refer to in paragraph 62. It was there said that:
“Concerns were expressed that including guidelines in the Bill could be too prescriptive and could generate disputes”.
I have already alluded to that as one of the problems. It goes on to say that:
“There would also be a risk that detailed provisions setting out when jury trial may be appropriate could inadvertently have the effect of leading to more cases being deemed suitable for a jury than at present”,
which would work against the committee’s view, one that the Government share, that jury trials should be exceptional. If this clause is amended as proposed, there is a risk that if somebody who claims to be a senior figure in public life whose credibility is at stake wants a jury or, indeed, the defendants to a claim by someone who is arguably within that description want a jury, then initially you have a dispute and a debate as to whether it is a case where it is permissible to have a jury and, if so, the suggestion would be that Parliament would have implicitly sanctioned the thought that that is indeed a case where it is appropriate, whereas I would suggest through my earlier illustrations that not even in that case would it generally be appropriate for a jury trial. I would respectfully oppose the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just made that very important contribution. I agree with all of it and therefore I can be extremely brief. I could add recollections from my own casebook of cases where juries were wholly inappropriate. The particular one I have in mind is the Convery case in Northern Ireland, but I will not go into that now.
I want to make only a couple of points. The first is that in the 19th century, Albert Venn Dicey said in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that the best safeguard of free speech is the English jury, which is far better than all those charters of rights, whether continental or American. That was the view at the end of the Victorian era, and Fox’s Libel Act did of course place great emphasis on the role of the jury. It was that Act, as Sir Brian Neill reminded me, that led judges to be very concerned about not giving rulings on meanings too early because they did not want to interfere with the jury. I was surprised to discover, when acting for newspapers, that they no longer believed that trial by jury was a good safeguard of free speech. They preferred the reasoned judgment of a single judge which could be appealed, because it was a reasoned judgment, to the unreasoned and incapable of being appealed judgment of a jury. In my Private Member’s Bill, with Sir Brian Neill as my guide, I took the step of saying that, not always but normally, trials should be by judge alone and not by jury.
Much to my surprise, the free speech NGOs and others, with the one exception being Liberty for reasons I understand, all supported it, as did the entire press. I note, of course, what Alan Rusbridger has said, but I do not agree at all with making a special case for celebrity public figures. As the Minister will remember, recently in another context the House agreed to abolish the old common law offence of scandalising the judiciary. The Law Commission agreed with that, as did the senior judges. It could not be seen why senior judges should be made a special case to be protected from gross offence, rudeness and attack when nobody else could be. Were we to approve this amendment, we would be saying that there was a special privileged class, called the great celebrity or public figure, who were to be given special point under the legal system. That would create completely the wrong impression.
One of the most important reforms is abolishing a presumption of trial by jury. The reason is that that then enables the Government, in their procedural changes, with the judges’ co-operation, to make all kinds of changes that would not be possible if the normal mode was trial by jury. This is an extremely significant clause and I very much hope that the Government hew to it without amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Could the noble Lord just inform me, although I am sure I ought to know this: is Fox’s Libel Act still on the statute book?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I, too, am extremely unhappy with the amendment. To take a literal point, why only a senior figure in public life? Why not a senior figure in the private sector, for example, where the consequences of the substance of a libel trial may be at least as important as for a senior figure in public life?
Above all, this provision—although I perfectly understand that my noble friend Lord Mawhinney did not advance it in any spirit adverse to the principles of our legal system—as my noble friend Lord Lester just said, would create a privileged class of person. It is not compliant with equality before the law. What is more, it trenches on the discretion of the judge, which I believe is the only reasonable way of limiting the right of privilege of trial by jury, given that that judge will be able to take into account all factors that seem to him or her relevant in that particular case. I am also bound to say that I cannot think of another provision in English law that discriminates in this way. I hope very much, although this was persuasively argued by my noble friend, that it will not be given credence by the Government.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for allowing the possibility of raising an issue that is not related to the group that we are presently discussing, but which is directly relevant to an issue that we thought we had perhaps put to bed, in terms of this Committee’s deliberations, on the previous occasion. To my surprise, on about 10 January, it was reported on the BBC that Rutland County Council, taking advantage of the general powers that have been granted to it by Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011, intended to sue for defamation three of the members of the council. This was extensively reported on the BBC and locally in the Rutland area. Happily, the Rutland County Council, to the edification of everyone interested in this, has published the legal opinion on which it based this intention on its website.
Without going into the detail, it appears that the council’s lawyers have advised it that Section 1 of the Localism Act has repealed the judgment of the House of Lords in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd by granting a power for local authorities, in these circumstances, to behave as if they were individuals. I have no idea whether that is right or wrong; but whether in fact that has happened ought to be explored before we close our deliberations in Committee on this Bill. I merely draw this to the attention of Members of the Committee, in particular to the Minister, with the request that he has this matter investigated and reports back to us before we conclude our deliberations. In the mean time, I will ensure that all the information I have managed to glean over the past couple of days is sent electronically to the Minister’s private office. I do not intend to say anything further.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Assuming it is permissible for me to do so, I will say in response—because I was involved in the case—that I do not agree with Rutland at all, for reasons that I will go into hereafter, if necessary.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how glad I am that Sir Brian Neill is with us now, having recovered, and how sorry I am to have told the Minister that I was not well, as it enabled him to attempt to curtail me. On these amendments, it is extremely difficult for one country to deal with these problems on its own within its own legal system, since, by definition, we are dealing with the world wide web. Secondly, it is a question of getting this right. The Government are right to say that they are going to deal with this by regulations rather than in the Bill, and that there will be full consultation on that. Thirdly, it is a question of a balance. In view of what we have heard already, I thought that one might think of the other side of the coin; namely, that unless we get the balance right there will be interferences with free speech which ought not to be there.
Mumsnet has written to my noble friend Lord McNally about this and its approach is interesting. Although it welcomes the Government’s efforts to reform the law, it is concerned with Clause 5 having a “significant chilling effect” on free expression. It states:
“Although internet businesses would be able to benefit from new defences, the practical outcome of the procedure as it stands will be that the vast majority of complained-of posts will continue to be taken down upon receipt of a complaint”.
Mumsnet then goes into how that will be and how it will be intimidated. It says:
“As with most major internet companies, Mumsnet is a responsible organisation that has no wish to be associated with abusive or serious defamatory comments. We have always acted promptly to remove abusive or defamatory posts once they are brought to our attention, and we will continue to do so … However, we feel that legislators have yet to fully appreciate that the problem, for companies such as ours, does not lie with seriously abusive or defamatory posts; our decision to remove those, once we are made aware of them, is easy and swiftly acted upon. The difficult cases are almost always relatively low-profile, and involve claims which—while they may be potentially damaging for the claimant—represent the truthful, non-malicious opinion or experience of members of the public. We feel it is unfair and onerous, in cases such as these, to expect Mumsnet administrators or members of the public to act as legal specialists, attempting to assess whether the complained-of material might be able to benefit from any of the defences in the Bill. We also feel that it is in no way unjust or unduly burdensome to expect the claimant—who, after all, will be in possession of the facts—to provide a minimum degree of information to support his or her assertion that the material is defamatory or unlawful”,
and so on. That is the other side of the coin, which one needs to be clear about. When we come to my separate amendment, I shall address why we need to raise the standard a bit on the word unlawful.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as the debate, albeit part two of the debate that we started before Christmas, has indicated again, there are wide-ranging opinions. Let me first set out that the Government agree that it is about getting this right and getting the balance right. This is an evolving area and it is important that we discuss these matters fully. My noble friend Lord McNally and I are listening carefully and intently to the arguments being made. It has never been the intention, nor should it be, that websites should be beyond the reach of the law. My noble friends Lord Mawhinney and Lord Faulks asserted that perhaps that is what this clause is trying to do. On the contrary, it is not.
My noble friend Lord Mawhinney made the point about being beyond reproach, and that what is said on the web is instantly translated and is, as we all know, retranslated and retweeted, wherever that may go. However, to draw a comparison with the printed media, while there is a source available, there are times when a story is printed on the front page of a newspaper and gets picked up on the internet. When that story is shown not to be correct, the retraction is quite limited. In the same way, I suggest that the damage is done. Too often, what is remembered is the headline which struck when the news broke, how it broke and the sensationalism behind that news story. It is not just about the website, although I concur with my noble friend in saying that the website is something which can sometimes go beyond the limits of the person who is hosting it, and the person who initially posted it, because it is replicated elsewhere.
I will take each amendment in turn. In doing so, I will pick up the various points that have been made by noble Lords and comment appropriately. First, it is absolutely right that the law on defamation should apply in relation to online as well as offline material. The Government’s proposals would enable claimants to take action against the poster of the material, the person responsible for making the defamatory statement, rather than the website operator. However—and this is a crucial point—the operator will still be liable if the operator is shown not to have followed the process which is designed to enable that to happen. That is a crucial point.
My noble friend Lord Faulks suggested that websites are being given protection beyond other media channels. Let me be absolutely clear: the defence for such websites only applies where website operators are not the ones who post the statement. The closest parallel might be a letter to an editor which the paper chooses to publish: it is not automatic.
Amendment 23A seeks to provide for the Clause 5 defence to apply to other “electronic platforms”, rather than simply “websites”, that have defamatory material posted upon them by third parties. The purpose of Clause 5 is to provide a defence to website operators that host third party content over which they exercise no editorial control. We chose to focus on this specific category of service providers because, as the noble Earl alluded to a moment ago, it is about definitions. How do you define things? My own background in business dictates that when I saw the words “electronic platform”, I saw them from the perspective of the world of financial services, in which it often alludes to banking platforms, which are slightly more limited than websites.
I also undertook during the summer break—apart from visiting Australia as I informed noble Lords I would—to look up definitions. How do you define an “electronic platform”? The varying degree of definition not just of electronic platforms but of platforms themselves is interesting. There is no consistent application one can put in.
Looking to the development of the world wide web, the word “website” emerges from that. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point that we are living in an evolving and ever-changing world. As we are looking at this issue, as crucial and sensitive as it is, I am sure that we will return to this in the years to come.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also talked about DPP guidance on criminal prosecutions. We are certainly looking at the DPP’s guidance, but we can see nothing in our proposals that would be likely to conflict with that guidance specifically.
It is not clear what “electronic platform” in Amendment 23A is intended to cover. As I have said, it has been suggested that the term “websites” is too narrow and risks not capturing new technologies in this fast-changing marketplace. We can debate and discuss which term is more appropriate, but I go back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Browne: we live in a changing world. If in further discussion in Committee or at Report a form of technology is brought to our attention that is akin to a website and serves the same purpose in hosting third-party content, and a suitable form of words can be found adequately to describe that in legislation, the Government are open to considering that point further.
Amendment 23B would mean that a website operator who complied with Clause 5 would have a defence only against a claim for damages in defamation. As Clause 5 stands, the website operator will have a complete defence provided that he complies with the new process. As noble Lords will know, damages are by far the most common remedy in defamation proceedings, and it is difficult to see what difference the amendment would make in practice. It appears unlikely that claimants would bring a claim for a remedy other than damages. The Clause 5 process will provide a quick and cheap means for a complainant to establish contact with the poster of the material and secure take-down. Should legal proceedings be necessary, action can be brought against the poster. In the event that such a claim succeeds, damages would be payable by the poster, and Clause 13 enables the court to order the website operator to remove the material. We therefore do not consider that the amendment is necessary.
Amendment 24 seems to stem from concern that a website operator will use associates to post defamatory material on their sites, knowing that they can hide behind the Clause 5 defence. The Government are not persuaded that there is a significant risk of that happening. The noble Earl also referred to practical issues. However, in the event of such a situation, the claimant would be able to pursue an action against the individual poster and would not be left without a remedy.
In addition, there is the obvious difficulty in respect of establishing what is an association. For example, who would qualify as an associate of the website operator and how would the claimant be expected to prove that association? Conceivably, an associate of the website operator could post something defamatory without the website operator’s knowledge. In such cases, it would seem entirely inappropriate to prevent the website operator from relying on a Clause 5 defence, provided, of course—I come back to the point I made earlier—that the operator had followed the Clause 5 process.
Amendment 24A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would mean that a website operator would not lose their defence if they had moderated the statement or had made or suggested alterations to the content. We do not believe that the amendment would be appropriate. Subsection (10) already makes clear that an operator would not lose the defence simply by reason of the fact that they moderated statements posted on the site by others. That will ensure that operators are not discouraged from moderating their sites in a responsible way. However, the amendment would go further and allow them a defence if they moderated in a way which changed the content of the statement. In practical terms, this could mean that an operator who changes the statement in a way which made it—dare I say?— defamatory, or makes the defamation worse, would be protected. I fully accept that that is not my noble friend’s intention.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Phillips seeks by Amendment 25 to add clarity. However, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I shall explain why. The Government’s view is that subsection (4) already provides that test. For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to identify a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person. As such, the Government’s view is that the insertion of “reasonably” would not make it any clearer, because it is clear from the clause as it stands.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendment 27 in the names of by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville and the noble Lord, Lord Allan, to which I shall also speak.
My amendment is at least easy to understand. It would simply add the words “and unlawful” on page 4, so that the notice of complaint under Clause 5(6) would require the complainant to specify a name, set out the statement concerned and explain why it is defamatory of the complainant—and, I would add, “and unlawful”—and then specify where on the website the statement was posted and contain such other information as may be specified in regulations.
Amendment 27 is much more prescriptive. I will not develop that argument because it is not my amendment, but Members of the Committee will notice it sets out in some detail what it is that the complainant is required to explain. Looking at the two amendments, mine is much less prescriptive than Amendment 27, although that does not make it necessarily better. The amendment gives effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that,
“the threshold for a Clause 5 notice should be elevated to ‘unlawful’, which would also ensure consistency with the E-Commerce Directive and the Pre-Action Protocol for defamation”.
The committee noted that the Government said in response that they were,
“concerned that to adopt the higher threshold would overcomplicate the process”,
because,
“requiring complainants to provide details of why they consider the posting to be unlawful, rather than just defamatory, would make it more difficult for a layman to make a complaint without first having sought legal advice, and would add to the cost and difficulty involved”.
The Government sought to distinguish,
“between the purposes of the E-Commerce (EU Directive)”—
which uses the word unlawful—and Clause 5, so as to seek to “justify” the apparent “inconsistency”.
Under article 19 of the e-commerce directive, a website operator acting as an intermediary hosting material is potentially liable once notified that a statement is unlawful, as it would be under my amendment. By contrast, a website operator is not liable under Clause 5, provided that it does not post the defamatory material. The Government say that the website operator acts merely as a middleman or go-between and does not need to consider the merits of the complaint in order to protect itself from liability. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that:
“We are not satisfied with the Government’s distinction in this matter. We think there is a real risk that website operators will be forced to arbitrate on whether something is defamatory or lawful, and will to readily make decisions on commercial grounds to remove allegedly defamatory material rather than engage with the process. As drafted, Clause 5 risks removing material from the internet, which, although it may be defamatory, may be lawful if a relevant defence applies. Material which is lawful may be suppressed because website operators are served with such notices”.
The Libel Reform Campaign supports this amendment, which allows me to make an apology to both the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, and to it. Last time in Committee, I became grumpy when the noble Lord, Lord May, appeared, on its behalf, to suggest that the “responsible publication” defence in Clause 4 was not good enough. I think there was a misunderstanding. I have now received the briefing from the Libel Reform Campaign and realise that it supported the amendments being made to Clause 4 and that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord May, were not intended to say anything other than that. Because of the sensitivity of the matter, I thought it right to make that clear at this stage.
I am trying to keep this brief, and not succeeding very well, but I should also add one other point. I need to quote the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on the Clause 5 regulations—the regulations, not Clause 5 as it is—because it seems inconsistent with the Government’s position on my amendment. It says, at paragraph 9, that:
“We propose that the following should be included in a notice of complaint (this is a combination of what is already listed in clause 5, and other points that we think should be in the regulations)”.
Here the Ministry is telling us what they think should be in the regulations. It has,
“the complainant’s name and a means of contact … specific information to direct the operator to where the post can be found on the website … the statement complained of together with an explanation of how the statement is defamatory of the complainant, including (as appropriate) details of any factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of”,
and then other matters as well.
The Government apparently have it in mind that the regulations will require quite a lot from the complainant. I agree with that, but I am troubled that unless my amendment inserting the phrase “and unlawful” is accepted, the draft regulations will go further than is permitted by Clause 5. Although that sounds very technical, it is quite important to ensure that that is not so. It does not seem to be enough that the complainant can simply say that the complaint is defamatory. All that “defamatory” means is that the complainant is saying that it is not true and it affects reputation. That does not seem to me enough—and it does not seem to the Government to be enough, considering their view of the regulations—for that to trigger responsibility on the website operator. At least the complainant should have thought about whether it is not merely harming reputation but also in some way unlawful. This does not have to be done with great legal analysis, but there should be some such indication.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I do not wish to interfere with the noble Lord’s attempt to be brief. Will he consider the observations that he has made, which he draws from paragraph 9 of the consultation document of which we have all been sent a copy, in the context of the words of the Bill itself—in particular, the words of Clause 5(6)(b) which require that the complainant in the notice, among other things,
“sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory”.
Would that not be a basis for a set of regulations that expand on it in the way in which this paragraph sets out?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, that may be so, in which case I made a false point on that. However, my main point is that it is not enough—and the regulations seem to accept this, in draft—to simply say that it is defamatory. It must in some way indicate that it is unlawful. That is probably common ground in the way in which I read the draft regulations. If that is so, and that is what we are told in our reply, it may well be that my amendment will not be necessary.
In my attempt to be brief, I appear to be arousing too much interest. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I think I know what my noble friend means in the distinction between what is defamatory and what is unlawful. However, it would be helpful to be clear with the Committee what distinction he sees between “defamatory” on the one hand and “unlawful” on the other.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sure my noble friend Lord Phillips understands that I am speaking clothed in the majesty of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as my personal view. That committee and its advisers came to the view that simply saying “defamatory” was not good enough. All that “defamatory” means is that there is a false statement which is seriously harmful to the reputation of the claimant, whereas “unlawful” means that one also looks at what the Bill defines as unlawful and what the defences are. We are attempting to make that as clear as possible. Therefore, the complainant, in order to invoke this whole procedure, ought to do something more. It seems as through the draft regulations are aimed in that direction. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)
Before I propose Amendment 26, perhaps I may ask noble Lords to curtail their enthusiasm in asking questions before the amendment has been proposed.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It has to be substantially true, actually; he had only to be a bit of a paedophile, had you had the information there.
The point that I am trying to make is that the person making the claim knows whether or not it is true. I know that I am a rotten scientist, and therefore to be able to make the claim I would have to try to find some evidence that I was a brilliant one, which might be a bit difficult. Asking someone to have to argue through the defences of the person against whom they want to take the action before they can start a case, if I have understood the amendment right, would create a higher hurdle for stuff on the web than for printed material, because the clause refers only to the web.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The noble Baroness has misunderstood. Clause 5 is not about whether you can bring a claim. It states:
“This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website”.
It is intended to allocate responsibility between the alleged victim and the website operator, and to decide when the website operator has some kind of duty to keep up because of free speech or to take down, and what information must be provided under the e-commerce directive regulations and under the Bill. It is not asking a whole lot of questions as some kind of new barrier. It is about a proper procedure balancing. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That is clear, but it still seems to be a higher barrier to take action against an operator of a website than you would have against the editor of a newspaper. The amendment only covers operators of websites, unlike the rest of the Bill. According to Judge Eady,
“a person would need to know something of the strength or weakness of available defences”,
in order to know whether it was unlawful before going ahead. That seems a higher hurdle to ask a claimant to go through than if they were taking an action for something else. That may be what is wanted, but if so, we need to be very clear that this is a higher hurdle for a claimant in the case of operators of websites than for any other action for defamation. It seems to tilt the balance very much against the claimant being able to take any action in that case.
With regard to Amendment 27, which would add the list, the issue is the one that my noble friend Lord Browne raised at the beginning: whether this adds anything to Clause 5(6)(b), which states that, in taking an action, the complainant, in addition to giving their name, must set out,
“the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory”.
That would go through points such as, “Well, it is untrue, it harms my reputation and it was published in a form that people could read”. Again, I wonder whether, having got rid of the long list that we had in Clause 4—because that was a box-ticking exercise, or feared to be one, about what was in the public interest—we are now doing exactly the reverse and trying to specify all the things that we have taken out of Clause 4. That seems to run counter to the idea of a very simple Bill, albeit that guidelines or regulations may go with it. Although there is nothing in the requirements that seems unacceptable, I am not sure that, having now made the other part so clear and simple, we want to put another list back in this part of the Bill.
Other noble Lords have discussed going to a Master, but in addition to the complications of that, and the costs, I also have worries about the timing. Again, in two or three weeks—I do not know how quick it would be—some things on the web will have gone around and been taken up. My major issue is whether the Committee is absolutely sure that it does want a different hurdle against website operators such that one has to go through all the defences that someone could have before being able to start an action. At the moment, we are not persuaded of that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble and learned Lord makes a valid point, which we shall certainly consider.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this brief debate and particularly to the Minister for his reply, with which I do not agree and will have to come back at a later stage to explain in more detail why.
I should like to talk about the wider world, because what we are debating today will be of interest not only in this country but in Beijing and Washington DC. Noble Lords will probably understand that in the United States, on the one hand, the extreme position is adopted that there is absolute immunity, subject to malice, for website defamation. You cannot sue an American website operator under federal statute law, state statute law or common law in the United States. On the other hand, in China you have the opposite position, and the same is true in the former Soviet Union. In China in particular, the great firewall of China and the Chinese intranet prevent proper access to an uncensored website within China. Noble Lords will have read what happened last week, deplorably.
In Europe, we have a compromise. We have the e-commerce directive, which has a notice and take-down procedure in general terms. We have to obey EU law. We have e-commerce directive regulations. The balance is put in very broad terms and can be fleshed out in various ways, but it does not allow either an absolute immunity on website operators, American style, nor does it allow the extraordinary regulation by the state that obtains in the People’s Republic of China.
Curiously, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, suggests that we do not need any law on this at all. That will make the noble Lord, Lord McNally, smile, if he remembers that when we discussed all of this many months ago, he quite rightly said that we have to try to clarify the internet position and we cannot just duck it; we need to have reasonable legal certainty in order to include it in the Bill. He was right, and it was quite right of the Government to seek to do that. It is extremely difficult, which is why most of this will have to be done by way of regulations and not in statute.
The burden of proof in all defamation cases under English law will remain upon the defendant. We have not adopted the Sullivan rule in this country and put the burden of proof on the claimant. The defendant therefore starts off and finishes with having the burden of proving the various defences. All that we are considering is what is appropriate for a complainant to have to provide to the website operator. The great problem is that the website operator—if it is Google, Yahoo! or Amazon, or a newspaper with a website—has no commercial interest in keeping matter that is in the public interest on the website if they are threatened with litigation or, worse, “unreasonably”.
Suppose, for example, that Google were to make serious allegations of corruption in the state of Ruritania, and someone from the state of Ruritania then complained about it being on the web. Google would have no commercial interest in maintaining that very important public-interest statement on the web, especially if it was going to be faced with multiple claims to take down without any obligation on the complainant. We are therefore trying to find a balance in a way that we protect free speech by not encouraging unnecessary take-down, while at the same time providing effective remedies to the serious victims of violations of reputation on the net.
The reason I do not agree with the Government’s present position is not just an argument about whether or not it is compatible with the e-commerce directive to leave out the word “unlawful”. It is also because the Government give the game away in indicating that the regulations that they are proposing will, in effect, do precisely what the words “and unlawful” will—or, as my noble friend Lord Phillips suggested, “unlawfully defamatory”; that would do perfectly well. However, there must be something more than a simple statement that something is defamatory.
I am sure that we will need to come back to this, because it is very important and difficult. I am not dogmatic about a solution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, those of us on this side of the Committee welcome this amendment because it follows the advice and recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but mostly because an amendment—identical in effect if not in words—was moved by my honourable friend Rob Flello in Committee in the House of Commons and was rejected by the Government. The reason given by the then Minister Mr Djanogly was that:
“The Government consider that the detailed and technical nature of the proposed regulations, and the fact that they will govern procedural issues, means that the negative resolution procedure is more appropriate, and provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny”.—[Official Report, Commons, Defamation Bill Committee, 21/6/12; col. 122.]
That sentence, in itself, argued for why that was exactly the wrong procedure for these regulations. I am pleased to see that the Government have accepted that that was the case and have now welcomed this provision into the Bill.
Having listened to the debate on Clause 5, I do not share the level of guilt that the noble Lord has for having had his colleague deal with it. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Hayter has agreed to do this. She is well equipped for the job and, indeed, has much greater experience than I have in your Lordships’ House, which makes her better equipped for this complicated part of the Bill than I am.
I believe that the most important part of Clause 5 will be the consultation on the regulations, which everyone who has come to lobby me about this part of the Bill seems to be a part of. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may well become part of this consultation process. Maybe it is time for all of us to become part of this consultation process, because looking as I do now, in the light of the discussion that has taken place in your Lordships’ Committee, at the 26 paragraphs of this consultation document, I would like to have my say about what should be in these regulations.
It might be helpful if some process was set in place so that those from all the various interests that are represented in your Lordships’ Committee who have shown an interest in this Bill could have an active role in a process of discussion in respect of these regulations. Otherwise, I suspect that at some stage in the progress of this Bill—perhaps on Report—we may find ourselves timetabling insufficient time for the debate that will ensue in relation to Clause 5.
Lord Allan of Hallam
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said that this was a probing amendment and I will speak to it in that spirit. It needs a response to clarify the concerns that there might be on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord McNally’s “little man” who uses the internet if we were ever to go down a route where there were these broader requirements for people always to identify themselves when speaking across the internet. As I read the amendment, there would be an absolute requirement for people in the United Kingdom always to identify themselves if they wished to avail themselves of internet platforms.
We need to bear in mind the key concepts in the context of other areas where government has quite rightly identified a need to be able to detect wrongdoing on the internet and to go after those who are carrying out that wrongdoing, whatever form it may take. Those are the basic concepts that we think about when considering the right to privacy and the necessity of proportionality. We certainly should not have a counsel of despair; we should try to identify people and make them own their own content in the circumstance of an allegation of defamation. I think that we are agreed across the Committee about that basic principle of trying to connect the people who have a complaint with those who have made that speech.
I certainly would not hold to a counsel of despair that says, “This is impossible”. In most cases, people can be identified. Most of the cases that we will be dealing with will be arguments between people who are identified and known to each other and who have an issue around whether the speech that one has made about the other is unlawful and defamatory and whether one of them wishes to take some action over that. In some of the cases that we have seen recently and that people have quoted, such as the Lord McAlpine case, it is clear that there has been an ability to identify and go after the principal people complained against.
When we think about those who genuinely are going to be able to hide behind anonymity, we are talking about a minority of instances. That is why I ask whether the test of requiring everyone to identify themselves whenever they speak would be a proportionate response to what will be a relatively small set of circumstances and whether it is necessary to do that.
Where I certainly have some sympathy, and we have had some reference to this already in today’s debate, is with regard to the cost of getting orders to disclose identity details. Again, we should be clear that those who provide internet services need some form of judicial authority to be able to disclose people’s personal data. I hope that we would all agree on the basic principle that it would be inappropriate for a service provider to disclose personal data about an individual simply on request; there has to be some kind of process that enables that release to be lawful and to be lawfully made. However, the current circumstances, as we have heard today, make that very expensive.
There is probably a lot of mileage that we could cover in terms of using legal processes that require the disclosure of data to narrow down the cases that we are talking about, where someone is genuinely and maliciously hiding behind anonymity, but I consider, as I referenced earlier, that those cases will be very much a minority. When we consider the measures that we should take in response, we should bear in mind that they should be proportionate and not do something excessive to deal with that tiny minority of problematic cases.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The Libel Reform Campaign is strongly opposed to this amendment but I shall not elaborate on what it says about it. I want to draw attention to one thing that may not have occurred to some Members of the Committee, which is how this debate will be regarded in Beijing. In Beijing, they have precisely this kind of amendment in their extraordinary firewall regulations because what they most want to do is identify political dissidents of one kind or another and then go after them for violating their internet regulations. This is exactly what they have and want to maintain, and if we give it any currency at all, they will use the fact that the United Kingdom has done so, even though our context is entirely different and we are not doing it to persecute dissidents and so on. I suggest that we should be very careful, in the lawmaking that we are indulging in now, to think about the transnational implications.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has just said, and it is a very strong point. None the less, we have to legislate for our own circumstances. I come back to the point that we cannot leave the Bill in a state where individuals can be grotesquely, viciously and intentionally defamed, where huge platforms—website operators—can grow rich in allowing that to happen with total impunity and with no possible remedy for the individuals concerned. That cannot be right. I am reminded slightly of some of the arguments about the banking sector and the banks that are “too big to fail”. We cannot get into a mentality where website operators are too big to pay. We have never had a satisfactory answer for why website operators could not take out comprehensive insurance so that, if they were sued by individuals because of the defamations of those who post on their platforms, they could pay up in the normal way.
I have great sympathy for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, put his case for Amendment 30, not least because we are all grappling with fiendish and unprecedented problems with no easy answer. Generally, I come down on the side of saying that nobody should have the right to defame others—in a way, incidentally, that will travel further and faster than any other system of publication in the history of the world—and be able to say, “Ooh, no, you can’t reveal my name; that’s a breach of my human rights”. There is another breach of human rights involved in defamation—indeed, it is worse because the defamer is doing it intentionally. I am, of course, taking the worst case. If you have to place in juxtaposition the vicious defamer on the one hand and on the other the possibility that that defamer’s particulars may have to be revealed by the website operator in the process of complying with our new legislation, I am afraid that I have to come down on the side of the person who has been defamed.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for arriving late for a group in which I have amendments, but I am not fussed about having missed Amendment 10A. These are only for discussion anyway. I am also delighted that the Minister is not a lawyer, no more than I. We are in very intimidating company, but I shall be comforted by the thought that I am at least talking on a sort of level with him.
I declare an interest in that I run the Good Schools Guide, and therefore the whole matter of opinion is central to my life. Knowing what is and is not opinion is something to which I have to give daily consideration when I am looking at the comments that people have posted on our website and the comments that we choose to make about schools. I am conscious that I do not get good, consistent legal guidance in this area.
When things are put as they are in subsection (2)—
“the statement complained of was a statement of opinion”—
there are clearly a lot of factual statements which I treat as if they are statements of opinion. If someone says in a restaurant review that the food was cold, that is a statement of fact but the courts are going to treat it as a statement of opinion. On the other hand, if I say about a school that my child was bullied, that is not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact. Yet they both appear in the same English construction as the statement which will be taken as a statement of opinion. Dividing the two for people who are going to practically use this legislation is something which they will find difficult and I have always found difficult; it has frequently cost me lawyers’ bills to decide. I would be comforted if the Government were to make some effort, since we have a Bill on the subject, to enable ordinary users of this legislation to have some certainty as to what is an opinion and what is not. I do not see anything in this clause that makes life easier for me.
The second thing that causes me particular concern is subsection (4)(a), where it seems that in this matter of opinion we introduce the question of a fact:
“The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of … any fact which existed at the time”.
Even if we go back to the restaurant review, and I say in a review on a website that the food was cold, how can I establish that fact? I am being asked by subsection (4)(a) to say that there is a fact there. I have no way of establishing that fact. If the restaurant disputes that the food was cold, how will I argue that I am dealing with opinion? In my interpretation of subsection (4)(a) as a user of this legislation, rather than being given the freedom of expressing a reasonable opinion based on my experience of something, I am being called back to establish a fact in order to justify my defence that this is an opinion. I have to establish that I have this opinion based on facts. Therefore I have to establish the fact, and I cannot, so I am not entitled to an opinion. As a lay interpreter of the Bill, I find that a worrying clause. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why I should not be worried about it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, first, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to Lord Ackner. I remember when I was arguing a case called Pepper v Hart and the Attorney-General said, “Don’t pay any attention to what Ministers say at three in the morning, it is often rubbish”. Lord Ackner looked at him and said, “Mr Attorney, is the proposition that Ministers should think before they speak incompatible with good government?”.
The purpose of Clause 3 is to get rid of the uncertain common law and make sure that the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just raised will not arise again. It is curious that he should mention the example of the food critic, because what convinced me that we needed a Bill, and particularly Clause 3 of the Bill—which was invented by Heather Rogers QC, in my view the most knowledgeable and open-minded of all the QCs practising at the libel Bar—was a case that I did in Northern Ireland about a food critic. A restaurant called Goodfellas, which was probably funded by the IRA, was reviewed in the Irish News by Caroline Workman, the newspaper’s food review critic. The review was very rude about the quality of the food in the restaurant. However, counsel on both sides and the trial judge—and certainly the jury—confused facts and opinion. Caroline Workman was put in the witness box for three days and cross-examined on whether the food was, or was not, of the standard that she had put in the review. When I came in on appeal, I attempted, successfully, to repair the damage by persuading the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that if it is a food review, and everyone can see that it is about opinion, you need very few facts in order to justify the opinion. There are, for example, food or theatre reviews that just use stars, so that no stars means that it is terrible and five stars means that it is worth eating or seeing. It is defamatory to put no stars, or only one star, but it would be absurd for the reviewer to have to prove anything more than that they were there at the time; in other words, that it was not malicious. Leaving aside for the moment the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the beauty of Clause 3, as it stands, is that it really does, for the first time, make the distinction between honest opinion and the defence of truth as good as I think one can get it.
However, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said about the Telnikoff case. I am not sure about the precise words of the amendment, but if the Minister were able to make a Pepper v Hart statement to indicate that whereas in subsection (8) we overrule the common law defence of fair comment—that we abolish it and start afresh—and that the intention in doing so is, among other things, to overrule the majority decision of the House of Lords in that case, then it might not be necessary for an amendment to proceed. One of the difficulties I have with the amendment is that although it singles out newspapers, there are of course other publishers as well—but that is a matter of boring technicality. I strongly support the spirit of that amendment and I hope that I have clarified why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can sleep easily tonight.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to hear that—broadly for the reasons articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about the purpose of the clause—I do not intend to speak for very long on Clause 3. Our Benches support the clause, although we recognise that in doing so we are not saying that it cannot be improved. If any of the amendments in this group can improve or assist the purpose of this clause, we will be happy to support them.
I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that while his proposed amendments raise an interesting aspect in the discussion about the difference between facts and opinions, I have to say that I am inclined to agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which is that the only fact that must be established in the example of a restaurant review is that you can prove that you have eaten in the place. I cannot support his amendments, although I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the degree of certainty that one can have now when operating in the area of opinion, so that one can avail oneself of the defence offered by this clause in the future, as opposed to in the area of fact. However, I suspect that one would not want to raise that issue in a room full of lawyers because the position is unlikely to be clearer at the end of the discussion than it was at the beginning. It may be better just to leave it to ordinary people to decide whether or not they are dealing with opinion. It is the sort of thing that one knows when one sees it.
On the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I anticipate to a degree that the response will be that they are unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will be convincing in his explanation that they are, but the noble Lord has raised important issues around the adequacy of information that would allow people to take a view as to whether the opinions being expressed are supported by facts. If they are the reporting of other people’s opinions or statements, there has to be some information available to allow people, outwith court proceedings, to come to a view as to whether the opinions are justifiable in the circumstances of the facts that have informed them. The noble Lord has done the Committee a service by identifying this issue. I am not entirely sure that his amendments would improve the clause, but I shall leave it to the Minister to defend the drafting.
I turn to the very specific amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We cannot say that we have not had notice that this amendment was likely to be brought forward because the noble and learned Lord raised this issue in a short contribution made on Second Reading, when he asked a series of very specific questions. My recollection is that he got a positive response from the Minister, who indicated that he agreed with his view. I thought that the noble and learned Lord explained the point compellingly in terms of the House of Lords’ decision in Telnikoff v Matusevitch, saying that it is not good law. However, I suspect that the noble and learned Lords who considered that decision did not think that it would be further appealed in the House of Lords some 20 years later. The question, of course, is whether the issue needs to be addressed. I think that the mood of the Committee suggests that this is not good law, but there is a question of whether it needs to be dealt with in the Bill or by the sort of device suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Members on these Benches will listen carefully to the Minister’s response and we will test that against how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in turn responds to it. If we need to come back to this issue again, I think that the noble and learned Lord can rely on our continued support. This stain on the law of England should be removed at some stage by other processes.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I hear what the noble Earl says. We shall return to this point in writing. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to return to this point, it can be debated more extensively at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
We know that the common law is being overruled by this clause. As I understand the Minister’s reply, it is that, without saying that the majority opinion in Telnikoff has been overruled, this clause effectively no longer reflects that narrow view of the majority of the Law Lords. Is this right?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and sympathise with his predicament. In the light of what he has said, and as we have an opportunity to discuss this at a further stage, I will not move Amendment 15 at this time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry—I am always very bad on procedure.
Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill. The Government have done an extremely good thing. Originally, like my Bill, and like the judgment in Reynolds of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, there was a checklist of factors. In practice, the checklist proved unworkable. It was a list of factors that could not be weighed one against another. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, there was great opposition to it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, expressed the conclusion in paragraph 15 that the checklist was inappropriate and that we needed instead a generic test. The Constitution Committee expressed the same conclusion in paper 86.
The inventor of Clause 3 was Heather Rogers QC. The inventor of Clause 4—as it is proposed that it should be amended—is neither me nor the Government but Sir Brian Neill. He is in hospital at the moment, otherwise he would be here, but he will be delighted to know what is happening today. It was he who asked why on earth judges would need a checklist of factors when one could produce a proper, objective test coupled with a reasonable belief. One can then leave it to judges to decide on a case by case basis whether there has been responsible publication. Whether there has been such publication requires the answer to two simple questions. At least, the questions are simply stated; they are not always simply answered.
The first is whether, objectively, the publication is about something of public interest. The second is whether there has been responsible publication—I do not say responsible journalism because this applies to everybody, not just the press—in that in newsgathering, editorial judgment and the rest of it there has been compliance with the professional standards appropriate to a newspaper or to other circumstances. That means that this is not a charter for irresponsible publication. For example, if a newspaper publishes something that is defamatory and untrue, it cannot be covered by Clause 2. If it is not just a matter of opinion, it cannot be covered by Clause 3. If it is not covered by statutory or common-law qualified privilege, it cannot be covered by that. It can be covered only by Clause 4—and it has to earn it because this is a privilege that is being given in the public interest. It is not a privilege because the newspaper or whatever should have a special right. It is a privilege because the public, through the eyes and ears on the media, are entitled to have information provided to them on matters of public interest.
This is a far better solution than the one I tried to persuade the Law Lords of when I did Reynolds, which was the New York Times v Sullivan approach in the United States. What came out of Reynolds was a compromise on the American position. The reason why the American position does not make much sense—with respect to the great court that decided New York Times v Sullivan—is that it focuses on the identity of the publisher and not the content of the publication. It asks: is the publisher a public figure? That is the wrong question. It does not matter whether the publisher is a public figure. What matters is whether it is in the public interest to publish what is in the publication. In the United States—I say this as someone who greatly admires the American legal system—not just, for example, a servant of the state but a basketball coach or a restaurant owner is defined as a public figure because they want to find a way to say rude things about restaurant owners. The beauty of Clause 4 is that we have now got rid of the checklists, we leave it to the courts which are well capable of considering matters on a case-by-case basis, and there is a generic formula. I pay great tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, under whose leadership all this has become possible. We have had great arguments about this in the past few months and he has listened. What has been produced, thanks to Sir Brian Neill, does not need any further amendment. It is fine as it stands.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am bound to say that I am worried about the way in which the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips makes that suggestion. I appreciate that he does not intend to move it. It seems to me that one can do no better than require the court to look at all the circumstances of the case. As a matter of drafting, I am not entirely sure that the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is necessary. It seems to me implicit that,
“all the circumstances of the case”,
have to be taken into account. That phrase is usually used in statute to say that all the circumstances of the case “included but not limited to”, and then it goes on to a checklist. We are not having the checklist so I am not sure that that requirement is necessary to be expressed.
My worry about the way in which my noble friend Lord Phillips—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am catching a bad habit from sitting next to my noble friend Lord Phillips and interrupting but since he does not intend to move Amendment 15, is not the vice of his approach that he will seek to make the court into the editor?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Before we go on, perhaps I should remind the Grand Committee that we are discussing an amendment to a government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It was called and therefore it will need to be withdrawn. Since it is in the same group, it does not particularly matter for the purposes of the debate. But that is the position.
Lord May of Oxford
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 22 but in a broader context, as I believe that it relates directly to some of what many people feel to be the unsatisfactory elements of the Bill in its present form and Clause 4 in particular. In saying that, I express my appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Government generally for helpfully moving things forward in response to earlier worries. I much appreciated the noble Lord’s comments, particularly in connection with Clause 4.
The Government’s proposed amendment to Clause 4 is a big improvement. The proposal significantly to modify Clause 4, which in its original form was largely an unhelpful codification of existing law, has been widely welcomed by those campaigning for a public interest defence—some 60,000 people have been involved one way or another. They and many of those involved in the awful cases that have given rise to the broad campaign for reform have been unable effectively to use a defence that was designed for newspapers. It is too complex and usually hugely expensive. It is certainly not suited to what medical specialists say at a conference, to reports on consumer issues or to reports on human rights.
Given that the Government appear to have recognised this fundamental point, I believe that they should clarify things further by changing the wording of Amendment 21. It says:
“In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate”.
The phrase “editorial judgement” has the subtext of newspapers. That covers much of the matter, although not necessarily legalistically. It would be much clearer if it said, “such allowance for the publisher’s judgement as it considers appropriate”. I notice that, despite the many sensitive comments that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made, he was not minded to accept this amendment, but I will persist with it.
I want to go little more widely. This amendment addresses part of a more general problem, in that the Bill still seems to many readers to focus on newspapers, editors and corporations. We need to recognise that the central need that has provoked the entire issue of the revision of the Bill is for a well drafted protection of individuals acting in the public interest. It needs to correct the current internationally notorious and embarrassing situation which is being abused by those with deep pockets who travel to the UK with the specific aim of using our existing legislation and its whacking great costs to prevent individuals speaking out on issues of public interest, particularly in biomedical and other scientific contexts. I realise fully that this is only part of a larger problem.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry, but Clause 4 in its present form and in its amended form could not be clearer. It does not apply only to newspapers and the media as it refers to:
“Responsible publication … for the defendant to show”.
That applies to me, to an NGO and to anyone at all. Criticisms of the law of libel in general are a different matter. On this specific point, I do not know who these people are who think that it does not apply to anyone but the media, but they are mistaken unless they cannot take the opportunity of reading the words themselves.
Lord May of Oxford
I realise that the situation is more complicated than I may have portrayed it. One of the more fascinating and charming things I have learnt in the course of these procedures is that if one is a member of the legal profession, one is not merely a noble Lord, but a noble and learned Lord. As an unlearned Lord, it does not seem that the bulk of the discussion has focused on what I understand to have been the moving issue here in the first place. In large part, it is a response to the Libel Reform Campaign which involves almost 100 organisations and, as I said a moment ago, some 60,000 supporters, including leading names from the sciences, the arts and public life. They have been calling for legislation to reform the libel laws since December 2009. The committee took that on board. I am not familiar with the committee because I was not a part of it, but it seems to have addressed the issue by and large in a sensible way and it has brought forward the Bill before us.
The Bill contains many welcome proposals—the single publication rule and some measures to reduce libel tourism, which is rarely referred to—but what it does not contain are measures to limit corporations’ use of the law in what I think are dodgy ways, or clear provisions for online hosts and intermediaries because it still assumes that publication means print rather than online. Until it provides a strong public interest offence, scientists, human rights groups, NGOs, consumer groups, authors and doctors will continue to be silenced by a piece of legal machinery that we should be more embarrassed about than we seem to be.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry, but if the Libel Reform Campaign has been briefing in that way, it is completely wrong, and it is time that it realised that it is completely wrong. As I have said before, the whole purpose of this defence is to protect NGOs, consumers and individuals, not only the media. So far as I am aware, the Libel Reform Campaign has not come up with anything better than the amendments to Clause 4, and I have been waiting for it to do so. Since I began to prepare my Bill, for a year I made quite sure that all the NGOs met me every month or so in order to reach a high common factor of agreement. The Libel Reform Campaign did a great job of publicising the need for reform but, with respect, it is not good enough for the campaign to make a root and branch statement of that kind without giving proper credit to all the ways in which this Bill dramatically and importantly reforms the law and creates a better balance between free speech and reputation. I have to say all of this because sometimes even NGOs need to be accountable.
Viscount Colville of Culross
I declare an interest as a journalist, producer and director at the BBC. I support Amendments 14, 16 and 21. In my Second Reading speech, I expressed concern about the chilling effects on free speech through the use of all 10 factors in the Reynolds defence as a checklist by lawyers trying to affect investigations both prior to publication and in destroying the public interest defence statement once something has been published.
In the letter sent to all Peers on 10 December, the Minister said that he was honouring his commitment given at the conclusion of Second Reading to look again at Clause 4. In the intervening period he has worked with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other distinguished libel lawyers to formulate a new wording for the clause. The wording they came up with to amend Clause 4 is very satisfactory and addresses my concerns.
Any amendment must not be a charter for reckless statements that hide behind the shield of a public interest defence. Amendment 14 contains the crucial words, “the defendant reasonably believed”, which replace, “acted responsibly”. Amendment 16 would drop the list of factors altogether. Some supporters of free speech fear that the words “reasonably believed” will allow the courts to work up yet another list of factors that can be used as criteria for what is reasonable. However, the amendment will allow serious journalists, NGOs and scientists who are reporting on matters that they consider to be in the public interest to use their own checklist of what is reasonable. I talked to my colleagues at the BBC who were preparing Monday’s “Panorama” programme on the Barclay brothers’ tax affairs, which had been months in preparation. They had dealt with multiple firms to get the programme on air. This would have been extremely helpful to them by bringing a very important public interest defence to a debate about tax avoidance by people who are extremely important in the affairs of our country. I am very grateful that the amendment has been brought forward.
As a journalist I do everything I can to check the veracity of claims that I intend to publish; to question at length the witnesses; to check out by any other means the truth of witnesses’ evidence; to find other supporting witnesses where possible; and to ask an individual, or an authoritative representative of an organisation being investigated, to reply. But sometimes, despite one’s best efforts, it is not possible to get a satisfactory reply from a person or an organisation being investigated. Very often that means one cannot publish. However, I am convinced that with this amendment I would be safeguarded by the Clause 4 defence when publishing a statement that would be in the public interest. I am very reassured by that.
I welcome Amendment 21, which further strengthens the hand of the author by making allowance for editorial judgment. It includes the words, “considers appropriate”, to ensure that the amendment is never used just for reckless statements. Not only will the amendment comply with the Flood decision that editorial judgment should be taken into account, but the many people who are worried by the quality of editorial judgments revealed in the report of Lord Justice Leveson will be reassured that the courts will have the final say on the nature of editorial judgments exercised in the publication of an article or statement. For far too long, responsible authors who want to publish in the public interest have been cowed by our libel laws. The people of this country have a right to be presented with matters of public interest so that they can have at least an informed choice in a debate on the subject. The amendments to Clause 4 tabled by the Government will boost democracy and accountability in this country. They are a great step forward.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I join noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the way in which he has approached this and the kind of solution that may now be very close to fulfilment. To be candid, it is not a position that I thought likely to be one of the outcomes, but I can see a great deal of the sense of it. I can also see that it fulfils part of his aim that there should be greater clarity for people who need to use this law; that there be a better, more effective law; and that we should not end this process with the same lack of reputation in this general field from which we have perhaps suffered in the past.
I will draw several arguments about the heart of the Bill together in a moment. I understand the strength of the proposition that if judges are to decide, in the ways that they are capable of deciding, that would be better than providing an extensive checklist.
In his opening statement, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he believed that the courts and the judges would have a mind to these kinds of things as they formulated their views. That is fine up to a point. The point where I think it needs a little more testing is that it would be helpful if, when the law is on the statute book, there was a sense both of what Parliament believed were critical issues and of what the Government had said in their responses were critical issues. This is not just a matter of what the legal opinions are; views are now widespread among the public of the United Kingdom about what it is or is not legitimate to do.
Let me turn directly to Amendment 14. A short while ago, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that there may be a clearer enunciation of at least one part of it. I do not think that he was talking specifically about his amendment; I think that he was making a general proposition about clearer enunciation. Indeed, I do not know whether his amendment is now a matter of fact or opinion, as it may or may not have been withdrawn.
Let me look at the two words “public interest”. When somebody uses those words to me, I understand them to mean that there is an entitlement by the public to learn of matters that are of the public interest in a broad sense—knowledge of policy practice and the debates on all those matters, what might be wrongdoing, malpractice or malfeasance, many aspects of social and cultural life, scientific knowledge and other scholarly knowledge. There is probably a long list and my point is not to produce a checklist. That is what I broadly understand “public interest” to mean.
What has also become entirely clear over many years is that many of the editors of newspapers—and this was also clear in the evidence that they provided to Lord Justice Leveson—do not think that that is the whole of what is meant by “public interest”. They have a fundamentally different view of what public interest is. I am not thinking of the things that Lord Justice Leveson and others have said were criminal intrusions into the privacy of individuals. Those are covered by criminal law, which is more or less adequate, although that, too, is probably a matter of debate.
My point is that common practices in parts of the press and parts of the culture of the press mean that there is a view of what is in the public interest and that it means whatever those editors believe might interest the public, whatever it is. Consequently, they can libellously or otherwise intrude into aspects of private life—as I said, I am not going into the criminality of the means by which they obtain the information—so that, for example, if they have discovered by one route or another that someone has a medical condition that they are discussing with their mum, that becomes a matter of public interest in the sense that the public in a prurient way may be interested and that it will unquestionably sell more copies of a newspaper if it is in that newspaper. That is entirely unreasonable. In some cases, of course, that may just be a matter of intrusion of privacy, but it is clear that on occasions it could have a defamatory effect on the person who is being written about.
I am not in any sense content to believe that the simple words “public interest” will convey to Paul Dacre that he is not, as he seems to believe, the ultimate arbiter of anything and everything that we should consider to be in the public domain. That should not be the last word on this and we should not allow it to be. That applies, too, to the former News of the World journalists. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I wonder whether it is any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to know that the courts have made it quite clear that there is a significant difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. The two are not the same.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention because it will cut out my saying a great deal more. However, it would be helpful, in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended when he said greater enunciation might be sensible, for the legislation that we are looking at to somehow indicate what that distinction is, so that somebody who does not study law as a matter of practice can pick it up, read it and understand exactly what is meant by it. I am very grateful for the intervention because that is precisely the point that I wanted to make.
Finally, I will say something about the list that is about to be removed. It goes back to the point that I was trying to make about Parliament and the Government giving at least some indication of the things that might concern them. I was intrigued by—and at one stage convinced of the importance of having in subsections (2)(d) and (2)(e)—the words that appear there. Even if the words do not finally appear in the Bill, it should be understood, under subsection (2)(e), that when somebody publishes information, the reliability of the information is capable of being subjected to some real test. I do not know whether that is another point that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may have in part answered. However, what seems to be true is that there are often few demonstrations of the sanity or motives of those who have provided information that simply gets reproduced and, on occasions, is not withdrawn. I say to my noble friend Lady Bakewell and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that not every journalist uses the standards that I am pleased to acknowledge that they plainly do. Not every journalist does that by a long chalk.
In those cases, knowing about the credibility of the information seems important. It is something that one would want Parliament to have expressed, even if it does not appear as a list in the Bill. Equally, in subsection (2)(f), although I am conscious that bad experiences should not be promoted into the making of law, it seems important that people about whom things are to be written should have at least some knowledge of them or some opportunity to say something about them before the event happens. If those were the ways in which interpretation of the law by judges were achieved, that would amount to great progress here. I conclude by stating that if judges do that, and if lawyers put arguments to the judges, my anxiety—which I guess I will just have to live with—is that we will not be talking about a cottage industry but rather a major multinational for the time being.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Would it not be in favour of the amendment to look back at what Clause 4(2) looks like? In subsection (2), it says that the court may,
“have regard … (amongst other matters)”.
That goes, because of the way in which the amendments operate. Is the noble Lord saying more than, “The concept that the Government accept in the unamended subsection should somehow be reflected in the amended one”? It seems that what is being said represents the Government’s own view, as expressed in the unamended Bill, that the court may,
“have regard … (amongst other matters)”.
What is being said now is that that must be reflected in new wording. It therefore seems that the noble Lord may be too pessimistic in assuming that what he is proposing would not be accepted by the Government; I have no idea.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Unlike a previous intervention that he made—which I thought had the distinct shape of a lifeboat being offered to someone who refused it—I am not going to reject his offer to keep my head above water. The oxygen of an intervention can quite often be helpful.
I am of course willing to discuss the mechanism for this further. I am conscious enough of the necessity sometimes not to insist on the form of words that I alight upon, allowing room for some manoeuvre. I would just make the argument on behalf of our Benches that it would be helpful to the general direction of the Bill, and on the effect that it will have on people’s behaviour, if we send a strong message in this clause that we are moving so far away from this checklist that we are prepared to countenance any relevant circumstances as being important to whether something is in the public interest or whether they reasonably believed it to be so. I am pleased that the Minister has used this form of words himself on more than one occasion, particularly when he was explaining the expectation of what the courts would do in applying this particular test.
I turn to the only other amendment apart from the Government’s three amendments, which I support. It has survived the contributions of those in whose names the amendments appeared under in the Marshalled List. It seeks to replace editorial judgment with the publisher’s judgment. I entirely understand, from the point of view of those at the sharp end, why they do not want to be hemmed in by something that is too closely associated with only one form of media. They are looking for a generic term that covers all the forms of publishing that now exist. Everyone involved in those forms now has responsibility for putting information into the public domain. I respect entirely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord May, on this.
I noted that in the Minister’s introductory remarks—I hope that he will find a few moments to reinforce this—he referred to the phrase “editorial discretion” as intending to give latitude to the judgment of how a story should be presented. From that I took the view that “editorial” is an adjective relating to an action rather than a job description. I think that it already covers all the different kinds of people who are, in legal terms, “publishers”. If that can be made crystal clear in an easily accessible way, the concerns that were properly expressed by those who think that perhaps this is too newspaper-oriented in its terminology can be dealt with.
I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords, and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not mention them individually. They have substantially enriched our debate, even if only two supported the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend. I am grateful in particular for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, because he comes at this with a view that is born out of his intense relationship with the issue over a concentrated period as chair of the Joint Committee. He speaks with authority, so when I get support from that quarter, I value it. The same gratitude applies to my noble friend Lady Bakewell for her support. She speaks for many people who have to make these decisions without constantly having lawyers by their side, and sometimes in comparatively difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her for saying that my amendment would be of assistance to them.
I have little to add and I will not go into the detail, but on the point made by my noble friend about the definition of “public interest”, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the Guidelines for Prosecutors on Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media, which is published by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Paragraph 31 on page 9 gives a set of examples of conduct that is capable of serving the public interest. It is designed to instruct prosecutors on how they should approach decisions that affect the media, particularly on the question of whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. These considerations are helpful because they clearly show the distinction between what the public are interested in and what is in the public interest. At some stage when we come to consider guidelines or government expressions of what they think they have achieved with this legislation, drawing on that sort of information will be helpful when addressing the issue identified by my noble friend Lord Triesman. It is a serious and important point in the challenge of finding a balance.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Not only do I agree but I wonder whether the following might meet that need. The Explanatory Notes on the Equality Act are the best example that I have ever seen. They are particularly good because they give illustrative examples of the application of particular clauses. As I understand it, it is now good practice when a Bill has completed its stages for the Explanatory Notes to be revised in the light of the debates, so that the courts and public have an authoritative guide. The Explanatory Notes to this Bill are accurate but not in any way verbose; they are sufficient to provide that kind of guidance. It might be worth thinking about ways of including such examples in the Explanatory Notes. I know that they are not the kind of things that normally one reads on the train, but it might be one way of encouraging public understanding. I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord, but it occurred to me that that might be a way forward.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am very pleased to have given the noble Lord an opportunity to make a very good and common-sense suggestion that I am sure the Government will take on board. They have taken on board quite a lot of what he has suggested in relation to this particular area of the law. In general, I agree that Explanatory Notes should not be set in stone at the point of publication of a Bill and not revisited, because Bills are often changed substantially during their passage through Parliament. It would be helpful to have revised Explanatory Notes. I agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the Explanatory Notes do not take one very much further forward than the Bill itself. This Bill has been significantly changed and the notes could do with some revision.
I will just point out that as a Scottish lawyer there is no conceit on my part about the state of Scots law. Clauses 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17 of the Bill extend to Scotland. When we reach a discussion of something that is directly relevant to Scotland, I will express my regret that there does not seem to be any parallel movement on the part of the Scottish Government to find time in their Parliament to bring the law up to the improved state that it will be in down here when the Bill becomes law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has put me in the position of Scrooge by suggesting that his officials should waste their time over Christmas amending the Explanatory Notes. They can do that over Easter when, it is hoped, the Bill will have received Royal Assent.
I am going to suggest something which I hope will go down well with my noble friend Lord McNally and with the Committee. I suggest that we should simplify what at the moment is completely unnecessary and should be deleted from the Bill. It concerns reportage and what should happen when a publisher publishes a report fairly and accurately. My original Bill, which I do not have with me, dealt with reportage, and subsections (3) and (4) explain how the Government see the position. We now have government Amendment 19 in this group, which is a new version of reportage. However, I have to say that it is completely unnecessary because now that Clause 4 is in a very satisfactory form, I do not think that we need to include anything at all about reportage.
Let us look forward to Amendment 19, which has not yet been moved. It is not something that the man or woman on the Glasgow omnibus would understand. It states:
“If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party,”—
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, does not like the words “to which the claimant was a party”, and I do not much like them myself—
“the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission”—
that is something of a double negative—
“of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it”.
With great affection and respect for parliamentary counsel, I have to say that I find it very hard to understand what is being said here. While I think I understand it, I do not see why it is needed at all. A proper public interest defence, as we now have in Clause 4, covers all publications, including reportage. We could go into the tricky thing about whether it should or should not cover someone who is not a party to a dispute, but I suggest that we should consider that hereafter—I say that not just because I have had no lunch. I do not see the necessity of including anything special on reportage, given the clarity with which the Clause 4 defence is now worded. I seek, therefore, to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and I would oppose putting anything like Amendment 19 in their place. I would certainly regard it as unnecessary to consider an amendment to widen this further. Rather idiotically, I think I have just said the opposite of what I wanted to say. I suggest that we leave out subsections (3) and (4) because they are not necessary and that we do not put anything in their place. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I shall speak to Amendment 20, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter, simply because I have no idea where these particular words came from. They qualify the dispute that has been reported as being one to which the claimant had to be a party. Shortly I will explain why that is, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I wish that I had added my name as well to his amendment—on reflection I really do not understand why these two subsections were included in Clause 4 in the first place. I have no particular objection to the attempt in the government amendment to concentrate them into one subsection, although the language is cumbersome. However, I would never underestimate the ability of the ordinary man on the Glasgow bus to understand verbiage.
I do not understand why these subsections were included in the Bill in the first place and I cannot find any debate about it other than that the initial attempt was a codification of the existing law. As I understand it, this element or refinement of the defence about reportage came from a case called Al-Faghi v a Saudi newspaper, or something. Essentially, this offers the opportunity of a qualified privilege defence to the reporting of a dispute, when it is the reporting of the dispute that is the issue of public interest rather than the truth of the allegations that may have been made between the parties to the dispute.
I will not detain the Committee by going through the distillation of the principles on which I have worked from the Al-Faghi case to see where the idea came from that the dispute had to be one to which the claimant was a party before it attracted this qualified privilege. I am pretty certain that the Minister will not be able to find in Al-Faghi a principle that requires that the dispute that is being reported be a dispute to which the claimant was a party. I can think of circumstances where the claimant could be defamed by statements made in a dispute to which he or she, the claimant, was not a party but where the reporting of that dispute could be in the public interest. So it seems unnecessary to qualify this defence, or subset of the defence, if it is to continue to exist, by requiring it to arise out of a dispute to which the claimant was a party. That is my argument. I see from his body language that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is about to make another helpful intervention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
It might be helpful to the Minister as well, because I did a pretty sloppy job just now in my desire to be quick. Under existing case law, it is true that the claimant has generally been involved in the dispute reported, either through being personally and directly involved as a party or through membership of a faction or group that is a party. But the principles are applicable when, especially in a political context, both sides of a dispute are being reported. According to Lord Justice Sedley, in a case called Charman v Orion, from 2008, 1 All ER 750, there is no need for reciprocal allegations. There can be a reportage defence for what he called a unilateral libel. He said that the reportage defence,
“developed in Al-Faghi”—
to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred—
“cannot logically be confined to the reporting of reciprocal allegations. A unilateral libel, reported disinterestedly, will be equally protected”.
That is, I think, in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. There is no express statement in case law that the claimant must be a party to a dispute, and it would be unfortunate if the new statutory effects were more restrictive than the common-law position. That is why all of this is present. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, it is not to undermine something in the common law. The problem is that the common law is pretty uncertain. It seems to me that we can do away with all this by not having subsections there at all. I hope that that helps. The new subsection has the potential to cause confusion in the light of the rest of the clause by stating that,
“the court must disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
The reference to taking steps to verify is there because the checklist in the current version of Clause 4(2)(g), provides, as one of the factors,
“whether the defendant took any other steps to verify the truth”.
If subsection (2)(g) goes, there is no need to provide for the court to disregard that, and any reference to taking steps to verify in subsection (3) would be confusing. I am sorry to go through all this but I think that in the interests of simplifying the law we can get rid of it altogether.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when both the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, tell me that we are getting this matter wrong, I have to think very hard. However, I shall respond to it and then provide some further thoughts.
Amendment 19 is a government amendment and is grouped with Amendments 18 and 20, as we have heard. Amendment 19 makes drafting changes to bring the provisions on reportage, which were previously in subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, into one subsection in order to improve the overall clarity of the clause. It makes changes to refer to the test of “reasonable belief”, to which I spoke in the previous group of amendments.
“Reportage” has been described by the courts as,
“a convenient word to describe the neutral reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper”.
Clause 4 is intended to catch the core elements of reportage as articulated by the courts. These are that where the defendant publishes an accurate and impartial account of a dispute between two or more parties, the defendant does not need to have verified the information reported before publication. This would not, however, absolve the defendant from the need to satisfy the court that, in all the other circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to believe that the publication was in the public interest.
Amendment 18 would remove the provisions relating to reportage. Conversely, Amendment 20 would extend their application. We do not consider that removal of the reportage provision altogether would be desirable, as is proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester in his amendment. As I indicated in speaking to Amendment 14 in the previous group of amendments, for the operation of Clause 4 generally, in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that publication was in the public interest, the court will be looking at the conduct of the publisher. Often that will include examination of the steps the publisher took to verify the information. We would not want the clause’s silence on the matter to suggest that there may in future be a need to verify in reportage cases whereas now there is not.
However, nor do the Government think it right to extend reportage more widely, as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in Amendment 20. We consider that it should, as now, be limited to circumstances where the claimant is a party to the dispute. The reason that we adopted this approach is because if the claimant is a party, for the account to be “accurate and impartial”, his side of the story would be likely to have been reflected in the published article. On the other hand, where the claimant is not a party, that would not necessarily be the case. We believe, on balance, that where the claimant is a third party, the defendant should have to satisfy the court that in all the circumstances of the case it was reasonable to believe that publication was in the public interest. This should properly include consideration of steps taken to verify, should the court decide that is relevant. That point was made latterly by my noble friend. On this basis I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I am not sure which noble Lords made the accusations that the amendment will cause confusion, is unnecessary because the common law is already developing or overly restrictive, but I shall look at those criticisms. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that he and the noble Lord will allow the government amendment to stand. I will look very carefully at this amendment, and the points that have been made. I give an assurance that I will take another look between now and Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The criteria in Clause 4, as it now stands, are objective public interest and reasonable belief, and I simply do not understand why those criteria are not sufficient to deal with reportage publication, as with any other publication. I am not clear as to what we are trying to save by putting these words in and I quite understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which does accord with developing common law. All of this is unnecessary and I enthusiastically withdraw my amendment, knowing that all this will be thought about during the Christmas holiday of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am the first Member to speak to this amendment who was a member of the Government at the time that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed. I support the amendment, as I did on Report, at which point I gave the House an anecdote to illustrate why I think that it is right. It is because of the risk of the perception of a lack of independence, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and others have spoken. I do not want to repeat what I said at the previous stage but, in the light of what may be said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, it is right to remind ourselves how the Constitutional Reform Act came about.
The Act did not come about—how can I put this politely?—in the most orderly way, and the consequence was that we rather scrambled to get to the conclusions. I am happy to see my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg in his place and I should say that a number of noble Lords were involved in the process. However, it does not surprise me that, despite those valiant efforts, in the end we did not get the legislation completely right, and this is a provision which we did not get completely right. If we had known about the examples to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has at least referred, if not identified, and if the risk could have been seen that the chief executive somehow being responsible to the Lord Chancellor might lead to the view that the Supreme Court was in some way connected to the Government so that the Government were able to influence its decisions, we would not have included this provision. Therefore, despite the time spent on the Bill, in the end much of it was done through discussions between my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, although a lot also happened on the Floor of the House. If the only thing that was not quite right was this particular provision, it was still a considerable triumph, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, those behind him and of course ultimately the Lord Chancellor will see that this is a small but hugely important change that will do no harm at all to any of the issues of administration.
The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the finances of the Supreme Court, a point that was made clear by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in, I think, the very passage to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, referred. What would happen is that a bid would be put forward that could not be altered and it would then come directly from the Consolidated Fund. I do not think that there is anything to be accountable for. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I strongly supported, as did my party, the separation of the traditional branch from the legislative branch. At the time, I disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as my party does today, about the need for it. We thought—and think—that perceptions mattered very much, and it was a great embarrassment when we travelled around the world to discover that the rest of the world could not understand how judges could take part in or vote in our debates and that the Lord Chancellor could sit in politically sensitive cases. Therefore, we strongly supported the reform process, as I do and as my noble friend Lord Goodhart does.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Goodhart for the reason given many years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, when he gave a notable lecture about the independence of the judiciary and warned about the way in which questions of resources and management from the Treasury could encroach on judicial independence. It was a very enlightened and courageous lecture. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the function of the chief executive, especially when the Lord Chancellor is not an old-fashioned, legally qualified Lord Chancellor, who, from his experience, would instinctively understand the need for judicial independence. In my view, it is all the more important that the chief executive should be accountable to the president of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and not to a non-legally qualified Minister. For that reason, and because we do not have a written constitution that spells out the separation of powers but only an Act of Parliament, I believe it is particularly important that the law should be clear on this in our legislation. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I add my voice to those who support this amendment. I do so with diffidence, because it may appear to the House that perhaps everything that could be said on the subject has already been said; but I hope that I will be forgiven for two reasons. The first is that, as was stated a few moments ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, it was my responsibility, as Lord Chief Justice at the relevant time, to be the spokesman for the judiciary. I had very many conversations with the person who became Lord Chancellor after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, when we strove to find the right answer to various activities which took place within the court system and which would take place in the relationship between the courts and government after the changes that the Constitutional Reform Act was going to bring about. I am afraid that I must have nodded on this point because I did not realise its significance at the time; I certainly do so now.
Secondly, in relation to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I suspect that he is influenced—as I would have been influenced, perhaps, not to attach the importance that I should have done to this point—by the fact that there was a great tradition within the Lord Chancellor’s Department, as in the judiciary, that the civil servants who supported the court system could do so without undermining the independence of the judiciary. Throughout my judicial career, I worked very closely with senior civil servants and civil servants at all levels, and there was never a problem. The Permanent Secretary at the department fully understood what the independence of the judiciary required. The unfortunate fact is that in those days there was a tradition in the Ministry of Justice of civil servants and, indeed, Ministers spending substantial time in the Ministry of Justice—or, as it was then called, the Lord Chancellor’s Department—and if they did not know at the outset the complexities of that very special relationship within a very short time of being there, they came to understand it because the whole ethos of the Lord Chancellor’s Department was that they must focus at all times on protecting the independence of the judiciary. I believe that, so far as the courts are concerned, that continues to be the position.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the debate when so many distinguished members of the judiciary have spoken. The fact that I do so is the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Many years ago, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, was about to deliver the lecture to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, encouraged me to speak to the noble and learned Lord and argue the case for the interest of the Treasury in the administration of justice. I had a very interesting debate with the noble and learned Lord, although I made absolutely no impact on him at all.
However, I want to put in a contrary voice because the administration of the courts, including the Supreme Court, is a matter of administration. It takes place at the taxpayer’s expense. It is therefore necessary that the Government have an interest in and a responsibility for it; on these administrative matters and the use of resources it is legitimate for the Government to have a proper interest. I argue that that does not impinge on the independence of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary, which refers to its operation as judges, and here we are talking about an administrative matter. In that case, the arrangement that exists at the moment, which was legislated for and brought into effect by the Constitutional Reform Act, is probably right. However, I realise that, in the light of the views of the members of the judiciary, this is not a popular view.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The noble Lord’s memory is correct. Does he remember that consideration of arguments of the kind he has just given led some of us to say we shall follow Australia and ring-fence the budget of the Supreme Court? That is, we should either ring-fence as they do in Australia, or ensure that the money comes from Parliament and not the Government. Does he remember that those were arguments at the time, counter to his suggestion?
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Yes, I remember those arguments well. The issue is to what extent the Government—the Executive—should have an interest in this matter. I think that the arrangements that were introduced protect the independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, and I would not want to change them.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was not going to speak until I heard the noble Lord, Lord May, just now. He is identifying one of the main problems that the Bill is designed to tackle—it arises in the other parts of the Bill—on the way one approaches the defence of truth, honest opinion and privilege. The Bill seeks to take care of all of those. The cost matters are being dealt with separately and are very important.
All we are concerned with here is the initial hurdle to get rid of the trivial cases. We must not set the hurdle too high, because that would be unfair to claimants; nor too low, because that would be unfair to publishers. My own view is that one word in the English language is better than three. For that reason, I hope that the Government will stick to “serious” rather than giving the judges the headache of deciding how “serious” differs from “substantial”. They are perfectly capable, it seems to me, of interpreting an ordinary word in the English language. In that respect, I agree with my noble friend Lord Faulks.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I shall begin with my usual disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. As I often say about my friends in this House who are lawyers, we are in their debt because if we had to pay them we could not afford them. We get the benefit of considerable legal expertise. The only problem is that it does not always point in the same direction. Nevertheless, it is welcome—as is the approach of the various groups that have become involved in this Bill. I pay tribute to my colleague and noble friend Lord Lester, who launched us on this path with his Private Member’s Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and his group, who in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee were extremely thorough. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, who played a very constructive role, and the various lobby groups that have come in. As has been said, it is a task of achieving balance.
I am grateful for the comments made about my own attitude. I take the view, particularly on this Bill, of President Harry Truman, who when asked whether the Marshall plan should be called the Marshall plan or the Truman plan said that it should be called the Marshall plan, as it is amazing how far you will get if you share a little of the credit.
I want to share the credit because my sole aim and intention in taking this Bill through is to leave us with a piece of useful legislation which will address some of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, has just referred of us having an unwelcome reputation for libel tourism, and to address some of the unfairness of costs.
As my noble friend Lord Lester indicated, we will be returning to this matter but I draw the Committee’s attention to my letter of 10 October, which is in the Library of the House and informs noble Lords that we were referring the matter of costs to the Civil Justice Council, an independent advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, to advise us on this matter by the end of March 2013. As Members of the Committee may have noticed, the Government have subsequently announced that they have accepted Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation that cost protection should be extended to defamation and privacy cases. Therefore, one of the matters which has been commented on most often, costs, is being addressed as this Bill moves forward. Whether we get the balance right is a matter for—
Lord Browne of Ladyton
If the noble Lord will excuse me, I will give way to his noble friend the solicitor first; then I will get to the barrister.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention but I am perfectly happy to adopt the distinction that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, offered the Joint Committee and that the chair of the Joint Committee has reported to us. I will live with that. I am happy to accept that. But that is not my point. Although I am speaking to amendments in my name and that of my noble friend, I am using them as a device to try to get some clarity of the Government’s thinking so that our Parliament can say, “We support that thinking. Therefore, people outside can have some understanding of what at least we think we are doing with the law”.
If anyone goes away and reads this, here we have an interesting debate in which a number of differing opinions have been expressed, all supported by eminent lawyers. If that leads to clarity, I am happy to go along with it. It may not be possible to provide the clarity that people crave. But my argument is that in our debates we should at least give some clear indication to people outside—they should not need a law degree for this—about where we are setting this bar and what it means. There are a number of ways in which one can do that, including reference to examples.
I turn now to the Minister’s response. I am grateful to him for the way in which he engages in the debate on these issues. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will allow me to make this point, then I shall take his intervention. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he engages in the debate and I know that he will listen carefully to any further points that I or anyone else want to make. I will go away and look carefully at what he has said.
While the Minister was speaking, I was looking carefully at what Jonathan Djanogly said in the equivalent debate in the House of Commons. He will be pleased to know that there was a lot of similarity. But there was some difference and it is that difference for which I am grateful.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The noble Lord said that I was technically correct. That is fine. If I am technically correct, that is good enough for me. I hope he will accept what I am about to say in a light-hearted spirit. We have now spent slightly more than an hour and the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has dealt with the matter is exactly the way we should not deal with the matter when interpreting Clause 1. If the kind of point that he makes were to be made before judges, we would undo the very purpose of Clause 1. The purpose of Clause 1 and the word “serious”— I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that we need the word “substantial”—is to make this a short, simple, preliminary procedure in which the judge, without having to go into evidence, is able to rule on the basis of what he has before him as to whether the case should proceed. That is the intention.
The more that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, refers to differences of interpretation by this person and that person, the more I despair. If those kind of points are made by advocates in interpreting Clause 1—whether with “serious” or “serious and substantial”, and in my view “serious” includes “substantial” and it clearly also includes the extent of publication—the more complicated it is made and the more it will defeat the purpose. We do not want to bar claimants with important claims, nor do we want trivial claims to be brought forward. That is what Clause 1 does; it strikes a balance. I beg him not to add to the complexity. As a great advocate he is very good at raising all these points, but it will defeat the whole object of Clause 1.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I accept what the noble Lord has said and I respect it enormously. I do not treat it light-heartedly. I think he makes a serious point. I feel I may have lost my powers of advocacy actually because I was not seeking to argue to change the words. I was seeking simpler clarification of the words and was using the only device that is open to me in these circumstances. I may not have served that purpose and may have opened up the opportunity for debate, but I do not think that I have done anything other than give some people who are not lawyers a window into the world that we will be living in when lawyers get hold of what we produce.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be anecdotal. I am a lay person. I am not a very experienced parliamentarian. I am a journalist. Even as we were debating the Second Reading of this Bill, events were engulfing the BBC in the most significant scandal of recent years, involving all the very issues that concern us here.
Early in October, a programme on ITV disclosed that Jimmy Savile had been abusing young girls for over 40 years in his television career. He had died in October 2011 and within two months BBC “Newsnight” was embarked on a programme disclosing these allegations. That programme was dropped and never transmitted for reasons that are even now the subject of two BBC inquiries; one conducted by Nick Pollard and one under Dame Janet Smith. Everyone must agree that it would have been in the public interest if the activities of this man could have been brought to light much earlier in his career without having to wait for his death.
Disasters continue to pile up at the BBC. On 2 November, “Newsnight” broadcast a report of abuse at a children’s home, in which the claims of one of the victims led to widespread dissemination of false allegations against Lord McAlpine. These allegations against an individual, who was not named by the BBC, proliferated fast and far on social networks, with individuals simply retweeting on their own sites to their many followers, who did the same. Five days later, the Guardian named Lord McAlpine as the subject of mistaken identity. Numerous law cases have ensued. The wider public has been excited by all these goings on and confused about what is and is not allowed in law. Lord McAlpine has gone to law, and substantial costs are being awarded to him in cases of defamation, but we still have a case in which several hundred girls who were abused over a period of 50 years have not been able to get redress. I cannot address the detail of this Bill, but I know that the public must be allowed to bring to law those who have caused damage and pain. Journalists and people who report in good faith what they know or believe must be allowed to do so.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hunt knows the history of this interesting idea. In 1990, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was Lord Chancellor, he issued a consultation paper, and it was announced on 14 May 1991 that he had decided not to recommend any change in the law. In 1948, Lord Porter’s committee came to the same conclusion, but the majority in the Faulks report—the chairman was the uncle of my noble friend Lord Faulks—came to a different conclusion, with Kimber and Rubinstein dissenting. It came to the same conclusion that the law should not be extended in this way. Sir Brian Neill’s committee looked at it much more extensively than any previous committee and it reported in July 1991. The standard textbook—Gatley—refers to that and to the way it looked at it so thoroughly. Of course, Sir Brian Neill has been invaluable on this Bill because he was one of the expert advisers, just as he was on the Bill on defamation proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, in 1996. I thought it might be useful to the Committee to recall what the Neill committee stated in July 1991.
“In any event, we have come to the conclusion that the hurdles in the way of doing justice, in any of these circumstances, would be so formidable that there should be no change in the law. The difficulties, of course, primarily relate to establishing liability. The defendants would be placed at a very serious disadvantage for the reasons outlined above, principally though being deprived of the right, in relation to the alleged ‘victim’, to interrogate, to obtain admissions, to obtain discovery of documents and to cross-examine.
There might also be substantial difficulties for those suing to protect his reputation, but that in itself weights less heavily with us since they (unlike the hapless defendants) would have chosen to put themselves in that predicament. Nevertheless, we bear in mind that it is not only their interests which could be affected since difficulties in prosecuting the suit”—
that is after death, of course—
“could adversely affect the best interests of the deceased person whose reputation they would claim to be projecting.
Perhaps the most poignant example would be that where the defendants have chosen to pleased justification or fair comment. Not infrequently such a please will involve charges of grave misconduct against the plaintiff. When the subject of the libel is dead, however, there would be infinite possibilities for injustice. His reputation would be put in jeopardy not only without his consent but also without an opportunity to answer as he might have wished during this lifetime”—
as it were, Jimmy Savile. It continues:
“In our view it would be as repugnant to permit such an exercise as to allow criminal proceedings to survive beyond the death of the accused”.
It goes on:
“The majority of the Faulks Committee drew a distinction between the situation where proceedings have been commenced prior to death and that where they have not, such that in the former case the representatives would be able after death to pursue both general and special damages. In the latter case, however, only a claim for economic loss would be permitted”.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will not be upset by this.
“We cannot see the logic of this. It is just as difficult to pursue a claim for general damages after death, whether proceedings have been started beforehand or not. One argument put forward was that the wrongdoer should not escape having to pay general damages if the victim had formulated his claim. We do not understand why the mere formulation of a claim should change the parties’ rights and liabilities.
More importantly, since the difficulties inherent in this kind of exercise relate primarily to liability, the injustice would accrue whether the claim was limited to special damages or not. Even, however, where only damages were in issue, there could still be significant injustice in relation to quantification through the defendants being deprived of the opportunities normally open to litigants, namely with regard to interrogation, discovery and cross-examination.
We agree with the recommendation contained in … the Report of the Porter Committee … and with the minority report … of the Faulks Committee, written by Messrs Kimber and Rubinstein. We are of the opinion that no change is required to the present law, whether to enable proceeding to be brought, or to enable them to be continued, after the death of a person who is alleged to have been defamed”.
I do not apologise for reading that in because it is quite hard to get hold of the report of the Supreme Court Procedure Committee. I thought it right to do that.
Finally, I would say to the Watsons’ tragic example—and to my noble friend—that hard cases make bad law. For the reasons that Sir Brian Neill’s committee and others have said, this would make bad law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Leaving aside smoking for the moment, how does the noble Lord respond to these various committees all pointing out the impossibility of there being a fair trial when one of the parties in a personal tort like this is dead? It is impossible to conduct a trial after death. This is a matter that one has to respond to if one is going to advocate a change in the law.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but perhaps my powers of advocacy have failed me with him once more. I thought I made it clear that I do not support the amendment for many of the reasons he rehearsed by reference to the document he read from—I am not sure what it was, perhaps it was the report of the Neill committee.
For all the reasons I have evinced, I think that it would be impossible to make this work, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also probably thinks that it would be incredibly difficult. I just want to repeat the point that we have some obligation not only to the Watson family but to many other people who have to live with the consequences of this sort of behaviour. We have to apply our minds to trying to find some way of giving them redress or at least a way of healing the damage that is done post mortem to the reputations of people who cannot defend themselves.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am not sure whether the noble Lord has followed what the Minister was saying. The Government have asked the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, to look at matters of procedure and to report as soon as possible. He has agreed to do so, so those matters are not in the Bill but are in the procedural forms that will accompany it. That is why they are matters for the judiciary to deal with, and so far as I am aware, they are going to deal with them as soon as they can.
Lord Mawhinney
As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interjections. Let me cheer him up by assuring him that I was aware of that even before my noble friend said as much a little while ago. In fact, I remember being told that when we were holding our hearings. However, let me be plain about my difficulty here. This subject has been kicked into the long grass many times over the past 50 years, something my noble friend Lord Lester well knows because his was one of the balls that got kicked there. He is asking the Committee yet again to accept on faith a promise made by a Government Minister that there will be heaven tomorrow, but it falls just a little short. The truth is that while we will all await with interest what the judiciary decides would be an appropriate set of changes, if any, it is perfectly legitimate for Members of your Lordships’ House to ask the Government, “What changes do you think need to be made and what are you going to do about it?”. In essence, that is the question which lies behind the amendment, although it is in the framework for corporations.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that so far as Amendment 8 is concerned, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. It is extremely close to the wording used in our report, and in that I suspect that I am looking at the hand of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I thank her for valuing it. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I support these amendments and what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said. He is quite right about the position of claimants. A number of times, I have done my best to dissuade any claimant suing any newspaper for the reasons that he gives.
It ought to be remembered that companies which feel that they have been wronged have a battery of remedies available to them, such as passing off or the tort that has very often been used: conspiracy. It was used particularly by Tiny Rowland in his battle because it meant that he did not have to go into the witness box, give evidence and then be cross-examined.
The law is familiar with the requirement of having to prove what is known as special damage in the context of slander, so there is nothing unusual about a particular hurdle being put in the way of corporations, as these amendments suggest. For the reasons given, including the potential for bullying, I entirely endorse them. However, I have one slight reservation in that there are corporations and corporations. Small companies that effectively comprise an individual or a series of individuals may have their reputation damaged. I am concerned that the hurdle should not prevent them suing when real damage is done to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly referred to the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I have the privilege to be a member, where we suggested that businesses should succeed in defamation proceedings only,
“where they can prove actual damage”.
She left out the last sentence, which states:
“This requirement should be relative to the nature, size and scope of the claimant business or organisation”.
That is an important qualification. I hope and trust that this hurdle would be interpreted by the courts in a way that is relative to the size of the company involved: that is, according to whether McDonald’s, Google or a relatively small company was being dealt with. Subject to that, I entirely support these amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, some believe that corporations should not be allowed to sue for libel at all. I think that that is wrong because although the feelings of a corporation cannot be hurt, it can be hurt in other ways, such as hurt to its reputation and trade.
In my Private Member’s Bill, I included a requirement of serious financial loss or likelihood of it, but I was not able to persuade Ministers or their officials that that was necessary because I think they took the view that it was quite clear as a matter of common law and therefore did not need to be spelt out in a Bill. Therefore, I am particularly enthusiastic about supporting these amendments which seek to do what I thought should have been done in the first place, as it were.
The problem of David and Goliath, to which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, referred, which may apply to a very powerful claimant or a very powerful defendant, cannot be tackled by the Bill on its own but needs to be tackled holistically. Above all, it needs to be tackled by wise case management. I do not say this because I am sitting opposite three distinguished former members of the judiciary but because I have enough confidence in the judiciary and in the common sense of judges to know that if they are given enough encouragement—as I am sure they will be by the Master of the Rolls and through changes in the Civil Procedure Rules and so on—to grab a case at the beginning and to find ways of trying to equalise the unequal power of parties, they will do so. They can do so in a lot of ways that do not need to be in the Bill itself. They can do so through the application of the Civil Procedure Rules or by the application of common sense. For example, there is no reason why a judge cannot cap costs at the outset or why he or she cannot determine that there is an extremely powerful defendant or claimant and that the other party is unable to have equality of arms. Judges can also lay down procedural steps to be taken, including alternative dispute resolution and matters of that kind. In my view all that does not need to be legislated upon by Parliament because we are trying to find out what is sensible for the legislature and the judiciary to do. My view is that you lay down some general principles but do not interfere with the discretion of the judiciary in interpreting those principles.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I apologise that I was out of the Room when the noble Lord started speaking, but I substantially agree with him. In fact I totally agree with him that the management of cases by the judiciary can make a significant difference to the length, complexity and cost; it can deal with all of those issues. Will he at some stage in our debate—it may not be appropriate to do it now, but we will get an opportunity—with his vast knowledge of the courts we are talking about here, and I do not have that knowledge, explain why that appears not to have been happening? What are the impediments to it? How can we address them? Has the holistic approach failed? If it has failed in his view up until now, where has it failed? That is the nub of the issue. He is conscious of the time that we are spending debating these issues—and so am I—and we may be spending our time debating the wrong things.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I should be careful what I say, because I shall now offend some members of what is known as the libel Bar. I am not a proper defamation lawyer, although I have dabbled in it. My dealings with my colleagues at the libel Bar have led me to conclude that the great technicality and obscurity of elements in the existing law are no fault of the judges but are very much the fault of my colleagues who have enjoyed very inward introspective legal practices that have added to the problems. In the framework we now have, it is extremely hard for the judiciary to cut out the nonsense that is there as a result of my fellow practitioners. I am sorry to defame a group of them, but there it is.
The other thing I wanted to say, which my noble friend Lord Faulks has referred to, is about the unsatisfactory idea of focusing on the company as though the company is a monolithic concept. If you focus just on the company, you leave out all kinds of other powerful bodies that are not companies at all: a trade union is a good example, although that has been dealt with in the case law in a particular way; many unincorporated associations; and many bodies that are very powerful NGOs, for example. The problem with the word “company” is that it is both underinclusive and overinclusive. It is underinclusive because it does not catch other powerful bodies that are not in corporate form, and it is overinclusive because the little dress shop company that my noble friend Lord Faulks has in mind—a one-director company—is in a completely different position from McDonald’s. That is why it is fact-sensitive and can be dealt with by the judiciary only on a case-by-case basis.
The amendments that we are now considering do not trespass on the courts in overreach. They are dealing with one aspect of the problem. The holistic approach involves case management, procedural rules and guidance in order to counter the kind of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had in mind.
I am therefore enthusiastic about these amendments, but they do not and cannot deal with the whole of the problem.
Lord May of Oxford
I am wholly in favour of these two amendments. I want to raise one question that probably illustrates one of my many areas of ignorance. I worry a little bit that saying a statement is not defamatory unless it has caused substantial financial loss will run up against classic examples of where a large organisation, like a corporation, has used costs to silence someone, but there are many examples of where people have persisted in their criticism. If anyone who is interested in these case horror stories e-mails me, I can send them a list of a dozen different illustrative stories. Despite costs of £500,000 or £1.5 million, and the loss of time to the person involved, the better cases, such as those involving an unsafe medical device or people in South Africa being told that they should buy a particular person’s vitamin pills and that AIDS medicines are ineffective, have been effective and have inflicted serious loss on companies that should have been put out of business.
That brings us back to our very first issue. In most of these cases, a good judge, with two or three experts, could have settled the matter in half an hour. Whether AIDS drugs or vitamin pills are effective is beyond dispute; yet it took 17 months and £500,000 to settle it. I suspect that I am, in some sense, out of order by raising this, but there is a slight overtone that causing substantial damage gives you a reason to start suing someone. I think that we need to go right back to our first discussion about having to ask whether the damage was based on an accurate description of untruths or unknowing or knowing faults and lies in what was being marketed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Most of what the Minister has said is extremely persuasive, and certainly his criticism of Amendment 8, to which I have added my name, is understandable. With reference to Amendment 4, which is much less detailed, if, instead of just saying,
“unless its publication has caused substantial financial loss”,
it said, “has caused or is likely to cause substantial financial loss”, whereby the proposed new clause would read,
“The Statement is not defamatory”,
and so on, that would do little more than restate the existing common law. Would the noble Lord and his team consider something that would set out in the Bill the actual common law position without debarring corporations or creating new hurdles for them?
Lord McNally
Once again I shall use my ultimate defence: I am not a lawyer, so I am not going to say yes on the hoof. I also wonder whether the words “substantial financial loss” covers reputation, as was referred to by my noble friend Lord Phillips. However, as I have said throughout our debate, I am listening. When I go back to the Ministry of Justice, I will certainly sit down with my officials and talk about the points that have been made and ask whether any of them can substantially help what is still my objective, which is to deal with the real problems such as those that have been set out by the noble Lord, Lord May, and other noble Lords. These represent evidence of how, on the one hand, corporations can bully, intimidate and chill, while, on the other, they may have reputations that can and should be defended. That is the balance that we seek to strike. I will look at what my noble friend has suggested, and I look to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney to retain his scepticism, but to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
Somewhat unusually, the noble Lord begged to move his amendment at the beginning rather than the end of his words. However, I am prepared to take it that he does wish to move his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, it is true that my Bill had a similar provision in it, but it did not have a serious harm test. The big difference is that the Government’s Bill now has Clause 1. Therefore, one of the problems with the amendment is that it does not take account of the shift from my Bill, without a serious harm test, to what we now have. The second problem is that there is a right of access to justice guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore we have to be extremely careful that we do not fetter that right with an excessive strike-out power. Probably that is not the most significant problem because the third problem concerns EU law and the Lugano convention. If noble Lords look at Clause 9, they will see that there is complicated stuff about:
“Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc”.
One of the problems—luckily I do not have to deal with this because the Minister will have behind him a whole battery of those who can—is that under EU law, one has to make sure that there is access to justice in this country in the defamation field, and that is because of a case of Shevill. As a result of that case, the European Court of Justice has made it clear that one must be able to bring one’s cause of action in defamation here in respect of a tort that has been committed elsewhere within the EU. Without making too much of a meal of it, I do not think the way that this is worded would pass muster under the Shevill test, and in any case it is not necessary because of the substantial serious harm test coupled with proper case management. Finally, the idea of the county court is something that I have always espoused. I do not think that needs much on the face of the Bill, but that is for another day.
Lord Mawhinney
I shall read out a short excerpt from our report. Paragraph 87 states:
“Once our proposals for clarifying and simplifying the law are implemented, with jury trials in libel cases a rarity, and streamlined procedures that encourage early resolution, we see no reason why many smaller defamation cases should not be heard in county courts … with some appropriate training, we see no reason why there could not be a county court judge designated to hear defamation cases in most major county court centres in the regions”.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I declare an ancient professional interest. I was counsel in the Derbyshire case from beginning to end. I think that I should explain some of the background, which I hope will not bore the non-lawyers more than the lawyers. In the New York Times and Sullivan case in the United States, the problem was that a police officer brought libel proceedings against the NAACP. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a landmark case, decided that where a public figure was the alleged victim of a libel, he could sue only if he showed bad faith or a reckless disregard of truth.
In the Derbyshire case, Derbyshire County Council, rather than Mr Bookbinder, decided to bring libel proceedings to protect what it called its governing reputation. I argued that the Sullivan rule should apply in English law. I failed—and I failed for a very good reason, which is that American law, illogically, looks at the identity of the claimant rather than the subject matter of the libel claim. When the case reached the House of Lords, however, that great Scottish judge— I repeat for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Browne—that great Scottish judge, Lord Keith of Kinkel, said that you do not need the European Convention on Human Rights to win this case. The common law matches Article 10 of the Convention, and Derbyshire County Council should not be permitted to seek to vindicate its governing reputation by using libel law and instead can go by way of malicious falsehood. In other words, rather like the United States, it could proceed if it proved bad faith or reckless disregard of truth.
That is the law as it stood and as it has stood ever since. Subsequently there have been some cases where for example a political party has been held to fall within this rule on a case-by-case basis. When the Human Rights Act came into force it could have listed, as does the Freedom of Information Act, hundreds of public authorities that would be subject to the Act. Instead it adopted a different test from this amendment—namely, whether the body was performing functions—even though it was a private body—of a public nature. Tomorrow the Commission on a Bill of Rights which my noble friend Lord Faulks, and I are both on, will be reporting about that definition and what has happened to it.
The argument in favour of an amendment of this kind would be that it would somehow clarify the law. I put my name to it because of my interest in the subject matter. Unfortunately, I do not think it does clarify the law because it does not use the same kind of test of what is a public authority or a private body performing public functions. It uses a different test. The argument, I suppose, against this approach is that it is better to leave it to the judges to do this on a case-by-case basis. I myself am attracted to the idea of including something of this kind. I did not put it in my own Bill—I did not think about it at the time. I failed to persuade the Government to put it in their draft Bill, but there was a consultation on it. I am bound to have to say that there was little enthusiasm in the consultation for doing this. So, although I put my name to it, I have some hesitation to the way it is worded.
This is a very important constitutional question. What we are really saying is that a public authority or a body exercising functions of a public nature should have to go through malicious falsehood and prove malice or recklessness.
We would also go on to say that, of course, the individual councillors or public officers could themselves still sue and therefore that we would not be doing any injustice to public bodies in doing this.
I have taken too long to explain all of that, but it is important that one understands the full context of this. I am sure that this is a matter on which the luckless Minister will have to reflect further.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, if this amendment was passed, it would make my life notably more comfortable, but none the less I do not think it should be. In my business of running The Good Schools Guide, I spend a lot of time being uncomfortable to schools and we have on regular occasions in the past 27 years been threatened more or less successfully with legal action for defamation. That seems reasonable. I do not see why schools should not react to what I say because what I allow to be published can have a considerable effect, not just on independent schools, which obviously rely on parents paying fees, but on state schools as well. That is because if children are discouraged from going to a particular state school, that school will suffer.
There are many occasions when parents say things about schools which are entirely unjustified and it is therefore proper that I or anyone else in my position should be careful of what we say and the basis on which something is said. We must ensure that we can reasonably believe that there is some truth behind what is being said. Although I agree that one should be uninhibited in one’s attacks on political parties and government generally, as you move away from them, you reach institutions that are smaller and more personal. An unjustified attack could have a very damaging effect, and so the law of defamation probably should apply. I would much rather see defences against the right to protest against bad public services as part of Clause 4; indeed, I think that Clause 4 could be made more specific so that it is clear that raucous views about public services are to be encouraged and given a wide latitude by the courts. Only under exceptional circumstances should those views be stamped upon. That puts the rights of the public in the context where they belong in this Bill, but to have a blanket prohibition would make schools and universities vulnerable to unjustified attacks. There has to be some form of protection against the most vitriolic.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am not a criminal lawyer and have none of the experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has, but I sat as a criminal judge—grotesque though that may seem—in the days when I was a recorder. I cannot claim much greater experience than that, but I support the amendment as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has said, this amendment was drafted by the committee so it is a JCHR amendment, and our report deals with our reasons in detail. In paragraph 60, our conclusion says:
“We do not see the justification for the width of the order-making power in clause 23(1) of the Bill, which, as it stands, authorises the filming and broadcasting of witnesses, parties, crime victims, jurors and defendants in court proceedings. We urge a much more cautious approach. Before any extension of this power we recommend that the Government conduct a much more comprehensive public consultation, carry out a more detailed impact assessment in the light of that consultation and conduct a review of the operation of the power after an elapse of years. In the meantime, we recommend that the Bill be amended to confine the scope of the power to the filming and broadcasting of judges and advocates in appellate proceedings, as the Government currently intends”.
I am also cautiously conservative on this issue because I do not believe that criminal trials are best conducted in televised goldfish bowl.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I do not share the concerns expressed by the two previous speakers. The broadcasting of court proceedings will enhance public understanding of our justice system, which in general works efficiently and fairly. There is also the possibility that allowing in the cameras may illuminate those areas of the law that are much in need of reform, a result that I would have thought law reformers as distinguished as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would welcome.
So what if broadcasters focus on sensational cases? That is what print journalists do and we do not exclude them from the courtroom. Amendment 113 would confine broadcasting to appellate proceedings but, if the Lord Chief Justice thinks it appropriate, why not allow the broadcasting of a judicial review application that raises issues of importance? Such applications normally involve no witness evidence and often raise issues of law of considerable constitutional importance. Of course there should be no broadcasting of the evidence of witnesses, and jurors’ faces should not be shown, but I cannot understand why there should be no possibility of the broadcasting of the judge’s sentencing remarks at the end of a criminal trial. There are many cases where, at the end of the criminal trial, the judge is speaking not only to the defendant or other persons in court but is seeking to communicate to the public at large. The judge should be assisted to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made what I respectfully submit was a quite extraordinary suggestion that judges need to be protected because their words may be misrepresented. She also suggested that judges need anonymity in the community at large. I doubt very much whether there are many judges—or, indeed, many noble Lords—who think that our judges need or deserve such protection.
In any event, Amendment 113 is entirely unnecessary because your Lordships will see that Clause 23 will not come into effect without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, who no doubt will carefully consider the details of any scheme to allow broadcasting of court proceedings. For the same reason, Amendments 113ZA and 113ZB in this group are also unnecessary in seeking to impose conditions on the broadcasting of court proceedings. I am content to proceed on the basis set out in Clause 23, that the broadcasting provision would come into force only,
“with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice”.
It would be far better to let him—or possibly, after next October, her—decide on the detail of the broadcasting scheme.
For the same reason, Amendment 120B, requiring a resolution from both Houses, is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—for both of whom I have the highest regard—are the 21st century equivalents of the 18th century Scottish judge Lord Eskgrove. When a court reporter wrote down the terms of one of his judgments being delivered in court, Lord Eskgrove complained:
“The fellow takes down my very words”.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Would the noble Lord address the points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, rather than referring to me as an 18th century gentleman?
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have made such points as I think may assist the House in answer to the arguments brought forward in this debate and the arguments presented by the Joint Committee.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment seeks to abolish the crime of scandalising the judiciary in England and Wales. I am delighted that the Minister has added his name to this amendment. The amendment is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has played a leading role in arguing for reform of this area of the law. The amendment is also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell—a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland—and the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
I can explain the reasons for this amendment very briefly. It is no longer necessary to maintain as part of our law of contempt of court a criminal offence of insulting judges by statements or publications out of court. The judiciary has no need for such protection. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, explained in Committee, the wise judge—and he, if I may say so, was a very wise judge—normally ignores insults out of court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made a similar point in a case he decided, as he may recollect. Judges, of course, are as entitled as anyone else to bring proceedings for libel, and some have done so.
The law of scandalising the judiciary could have been left in the moribund state in which it has rested for many years. However, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland unwisely chose earlier this year to seek to breathe life into it by bringing a prosecution, later dropped, against Peter Hain MP for some critical comments he had made in his autobiography concerning a Northern Ireland judge. That prosecution had two main consequences. First, it substantially increased the sales of Mr Hain’s book and, secondly, it led to this amendment.
When we debated this subject in Committee on 2 July, the Minister gave a cautious welcome to the amendment but said, very properly, that the Government wished to consult on the matter. As a result of the debate in this House, the Law Commission expedited the publication of a consultation paper on 10 August in which it proposed that the offence of scandalising the judiciary should indeed be abolished.
I emphasise that the amendment will not affect other aspects of the law of contempt of court and in particular the powers of the judge to deal with any disruptions during court proceedings. I also emphasise that the amendment is not designed to encourage criticism of the judiciary. Much of the criticism to which judges are subjected is ill informed and unsubstantiated. However, even where criticism is unjustified, it should not be a criminal offence.
The amendment will not affect the law in Northern Ireland or Scotland, in the latter of which the offence is known as “murmuring judges”. I understand that in Northern Ireland more consultation is required. It is ironic that the impetus for this amendment came from the Peter Hain case in Northern Ireland, and now the anachronistic law that led to that case is to be abolished in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister can give us an indication of when consultations with Northern Ireland will be completed and a decision reached.
Meanwhile, I am delighted by the historic decision which I hope that this House will take tonight to approve an amendment abolishing the offence of scandalising the judiciary in England and Wales. As Justice Albie Sachs said on this subject in a judgment in the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2001, respect for the courts will be all the stronger,
“to the degree that it is earned, rather than to the extent that it is commanded”.
I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend will give way. I want to intervene now because what I am going to say will help the shape of the debate. I realise that my noble friend and a number of noble and learned Lords may wish to contribute. I in no way want to cut short or pre-empt that debate, but I hope that my comments will establish the context for them to comment on what the Government intend to do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, told us, we considered a similar amendment to this in Committee in July. I said that the Government were sympathetic to the concerns raised about the offence of scandalising the judiciary but we wished to consider the issue further and to consult others. In particular, before moving to reform or abolish this offence, we wished to consider whether such a step could result in a gap in the law or have an unwanted side-effect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, told us, in this we had the benefit of the work of the Law Commission, which was and is currently reviewing the law on contempt of court. As the noble Lord said, it kindly brought forward the element of its review considering scandalising the court and published a paper for public consultation in August. The commission considered three options in its consultation paper—to retain, abolish or replace the offence—and it has concluded that the offence should be abolished without replacement. Its analysis was in-depth, examining the human rights aspects and considering the arguments for and against the various options.
The consultation closed in October, and the commission published a summary of responses last month and a summary of its conclusions yesterday. I was pleased to see that several noble Lords responded with their views, and that members of the judiciary and other legal professions were also well represented. Of 46 responses, some from organisations, 32 were in favour of abolition. The remainder expressed a variety of views, most favouring a replacement offence, but I note that only two favoured retaining the offence in England and Wales, at least for now.
We have also noted other views, such as those expressed by noble Lords in Committee, and have concluded that it is right that this offence should be abolished. We therefore support the amendment. However, we also noted the Law Commission’s observation in its paper that:
“It may be necessary to clarify that the abolition of this offence does not affect liability for behaviour in court or conduct that may prejudice or impede particular proceedings”.
We support that view that abuse of a judge in the face of the court, or behaviour that otherwise interferes with particular proceedings, should remain a contempt. The new clause includes a provision that will ensure such behaviour will remain subject to proceedings for contempt of court.
In contrast to the amendment we debated in Committee, which extended to Northern Ireland, this amendment applies to England and Wales only, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained. In July, I said that we would be consulting the devolved Administrations; noble Lords must remember the criminal law is a devolved matter in both Northern Ireland and Scotland. Scandalising the judiciary is also a common law offence in Northern Ireland. As I have said, we consulted with the Minister of Justice, David Ford, who has confirmed that he does not wish the Westminster Parliament to legislate on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly on this offence. Similarly, the Scottish Government have also confirmed that they do not wish us to legislate on their similar common law offence of murmuring judges. Given that this is a devolved matter in both jurisdictions and under the terms of the Sewel Convention, we wish to respect the wishes of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Assembly in this matter.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for bringing this matter before the House. The Government are happy to support this amendment, and through it the abolition in England and Wales of the offence of scandalising the judiciary. I hope that my intervention at the start of the debate does not prevent other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords from making observations on where we are and where we are going.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I declare a former professional interest in that I acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the aborted contempt proceedings in relation to Peter Hain and his publisher. I am extremely grateful to the Attorney General for Northern Ireland for his entirely misguided decision to move for committal because, but for that, I would not be standing here in support of the amendment. We owe everything to the Attorney General because it was that which caused me to contact the Law Commission and the Government, and to discuss the matter with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the first place.
It is important that the Government have decided to do what we have just heard from the Minister, and that is most welcome. However, I pay tribute to the previous Government, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his place when I say this. He will remember that the other antique and archaic speech crimes of sedition, seditious libel, defamatory libel, obscene libel and blasphemous libel were all abolished by the previous Government and Parliament for similar reasons connected with free speech.
So far as blasphemy was concerned, for the reasons given by the Minister, it was decided that, although we could abolish that offence in Britain, we could not do so in Northern Ireland. We left it to Northern Ireland to do so itself, and we thought that it would be easy to do there because Northern Ireland already had a law on incitement to religious hatred that was rather stricter than what we have in this part of the kingdom. However, nothing has happened on that issue in Northern Ireland because there is institutional paralysis about doing anything of the kind. I know that this matter has concerned the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and exactly the same problem arises now. Even though the amendment springs from a problem that arose in Northern Ireland, I am doubtful as to whether the Northern Ireland Government will agree to bring their common law into line with what we are doing in England and Wales. However, given that two other supporters of the amendment know far more about Northern Ireland than I would ever know, I shall not say more about that matter.
I should like to make one other point. Although abolishing this crime in this country will make very little difference because the law is entirely obsolete, it will make a difference in the rest of the common law world. All the textbooks, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, say the same thing, which is that, although this is an outmoded and archaic offence, there remain many parts of the common law world where it is enforced. The most notorious example occurred in Singapore last year, where Mr Alan Shadrake, who wrote a book criticising the Singapore judiciary’s attitude towards the death penalty, was committed for contempt, sentenced to prison, fined and told to pay legal costs. This gentleman, who is about my age and a distinguished senior writer, was condemned in that way, with the Singapore Court of Appeal applying its view on our case law and this offence. By abolishing the offence today we do not really change much in this part of the world because, apart from what happened in Northern Ireland, it is simply never invoked anymore. However, it will send an important message across the common law world. That is another reason why I am so delighted that the Government have decided to take this course.
Lord Carswell
My Lords, I support this amendment. I spoke briefly in Committee and I intend to be brief again today, particularly in view of the way in which the House has so far received the amendment and what the Minister has said.
Since that debate in Committee, the Law Commission has published this admirable consultation paper, which contains a full and helpful discussion of the issues, the principles and the possible solutions. My view, which was very direct and brief in Committee, remains unchanged. The special sanction for judges remains unnecessary. My reasons remain the same. Judges have to be hardy enough to shrug off criticism, even if it is intemperate or abusive, which has happened; even if it is unfair and ill-informed, which has certainly happened; and even if it is downright deliberately misleading, the same applies.
I speak from some knowledge. I have been scandalised on several occasions in the course of criminal trials at which I was the presiding judge without a jury. It was intemperate, certainly ill-informed and extremely offensive. I was deeply offended and hurt, but I certainly did not consider attempting to ask anyone to invoke the special procedure of scandalising the court. If anyone had suggested it, I would have firmly discouraged him at that time, which is a good many years ago now.
After I read the Law Commission consultation paper, I considered quite seriously whether there was room for the possibility of a new and more specific offence, penalising possibly deliberate and malicious targeting of a judge by making untrue and scandalous allegations into something of a campaign. I am persuaded, however, that it is better not to introduce any such offence into the law but simply to leave it at abolishing the offence of scandalising.
My reasons are three. First, special protection of judges immediately invites criticism from those who are all too ready to give vent to it. Secondly, if a judge had to give evidence in such proceedings, it would create a further and better opportunity for intrusive cross-examination and create a field day for publicity for critics of the judiciary. Thirdly, as I have said before, judges have to put up with these things; they have to be robust, firm and, on occasions, hard-skinned enough.
The Law Commission, in my view, was right in its provisional conclusions and I hope that when the report has been considered, the responses will confirm that. I would certainly support the amendment that the offence should simply be abolished.
Finally, as noble Lords have said, this of course does not apply in Northern Ireland. The authorities there will form their own view and take their own course. I cannot and do not in any way speak for them, nor have they consulted me about such provisions. I have to say, and I hope that they will take this into account, that I cannot see any reason why judges in Northern Ireland should have any different protection from judges in England and Wales against scandalising. I think the same considerations apply, and having been a judge there for 20 years, I would certainly not wish to see any differentiation.
Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill [HL]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, in 2008 I introduced the Cohabitation Bill to give legal rights to financial provision for those in cohabiting relationships in the event of separation or death. It won wide support but was strongly opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who, I am delighted to say, will take part in this debate. The Labour Government were sympathetic but awaited the outcome of the experience in Scotland, where the law is already in place. I am hopeful that my previous Bill, or a similar Bill, will be reintroduced in the near future.
Like many other countries, the Republic of Ireland gives legal protection to so-called common law marriages. It may surprise some that our law is well behind that of the Irish Republic. The Republic has a redress scheme for cohabiting couples under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, which came into force on 1 January 2011. I hope that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames will be able to introduce a Bill of his own to give effect to the Law Commission’s proposals on that wider issue of cohabitation rights. I can tell the House that this Bill has the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, neither of whom can be present today.
The present Bill is much more limited than the previous Bill but it is of real practical importance. It was drafted by the Law Commission for England and Wales—not by me—following its consultation on intestacy and family provision claims on death. For anyone who is interested, copies of the Law Commission’s rather long but important and well informed report can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office. The report sets out the Law Commission’s proposals to improve and clarify the law on intestacy and family provision. Those measures of law reform will particularly benefit women and children, and relieve the taxpayer of unnecessary burdens.
There is a special procedure for Law Commission Bills on non-controversial subjects, and the commission considers that most of its proposals can be dealt with in a non-contentious way. The Government have until the end of the year to respond to its report and I hope that they will be able to do so positively.
Meanwhile, the Law Commission considered—in paragraphs 1.100 to 1.105—that, because it is controversial to enhance the rights of cohabiting couples, it would be necessary to deal with that subject by means of a separate measure. It therefore drafted this Bill, which I have taken up in the hope that it will be given a Second Reading and, in due course, perhaps enacted together with a non-contentious Bill, as the two are part of each other.
When the Law Commission reviewed the law on intestacy more than 20 years ago, it rejected reform of the intestacy rules to take account of cohabitants. However, it recommended the inclusion of cohabitants as a separate category of applicant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. That recommendation was enacted in 1995 and took effect from 1 January 1996. Since then, a person living in the same household as the deceased, and as the husband or wife of the deceased for a continuous period of two years before the death, has been entitled to make a claim for family provision from the estate. That right has since been extended to same-sex couples—see paragraph 8.7 of the report.
Meanwhile, the prevalence of cohabitation has increased enormously. As the Law Commission noted in paragraph 8.21 of its report:
“Cohabitation is no longer an insignificant minority choice, nor a socially unacceptable lifestyle”.
In 2006, of those aged under 60 and unmarried, 24% of men and 25% of women were cohabiting in Britain. By 2010, around 7.5 million people were living in cohabiting families, representing more than 15% of all families. The Office for National Statistics indicates that the number of cohabiting couples in England and Wales will increase from 4.7 million in 2008 to 7.6 million in 2033. Cohabitation is widespread and will become more so.
The Law Commission’s research shows that cohabitants are among the people least likely to have a will and so most likely to die intestate. The National Consumer Council found that only 17% of cohabitants had made a will. The Law Commission’s research showed that court awards to cohabitants under the 1975 Act can result in the award of significant sums that make long-term provision for the applicant and recognise the lifestyle that the couple enjoyed. However, awards are limited to provision for the applicant’s maintenance, rather than being on the more generous basis used to make awards for spouses. Crucially, a cohabitant’s only route to a share of their deceased partner’s estate on intestacy is through litigation, or the threat of it, under the 1975 Act. The Law Commission comments that that can create significant hardship for cohabitants. That was shown by personal responses to its consultation.
The Law Commission’s research indicated that some cohabitants choose simply to move out of the family home rather than go through the costs and stress of litigation and that in other cases the cohabitant may not be aware of the right to claim at all under the 1975 Act. Where the cohabitant is caring for children from her or his relationship with the deceased, any claim will be against those children’s entitlement under the intestacy rules. Litigation is therefore likely to involve the added expense and emotional turmoil of having the children involved, and being separately represented, in proceedings essentially aimed at reorganising the estate to make the family finances workable.
The hardship of the current situation is caused mostly by ignorance of the law. Specifically, cohabitants believe themselves to be common-law spouses after a certain period of time, with all the rights of married or civil-partnered couples, and discover that this is not the case only when their partner dies. The report covers this in paragraphs 8.9, 8.17, 8.24 and 8.25.
The Law Commission’s report notes those who were opposed to change. It deals with all the consultation responses very fairly by explaining both sides. Among those in favour were professional groups such as Resolution, representing most family law solicitors, the Family Law Bar Association, the Law Society and the Office of the Official Solicitor. However, some professional groups oppose the change that would be accomplished by the Bill. Among them were judges of the Family Division and the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the City of Westminster Law Society. The Law Commission used the Nuffield survey on attitudes to will-making and succession for statistically significant evidence of public opinion.
The ability to inherit rests on commitment and financial interdependence. It is the financial interdependency that has practical implications for the cohabitant’s future after bereavement. Sharing a household and bringing up children increases interdependence, which only deepens over time. When that interdependency is terminated by death, hardship results. The report covers this in paragraph 8.18. The Law Commission found strong support for cohabitants to have an entitlement on intestacy, but it recognised that indicators of commitment were essential. The report covers this in paragraph 8.40.
Since I tabled the Bill, my office has received letters and e-mails of support from those whom the Bill is designed to help. These are people who, having cohabited for decades and shared their finances and the upbringing of their children, are passed over by the law in favour of other relations with whom the deceased had no or little contact prior to death. They face long, costly litigation, as well as the stress of uncertainty at a time when they are already suffering from grief.
The Law Commission recommended that certain “qualifying cohabitants” should be included in the list of those who benefit by default under the intestacy rules. The report covers this in paragraph 8.42. This is the change that the Bill accomplishes. The report explains its recommendation.
Clause 1 of the Bill amends the Administration of Estates Act 1925 to place a “qualifying cohabitant” in the same position as a spouse or civil partner. Clause 1(5) introduces the two conditions of being a “qualifying cohabitant”, only one of which needs to be met. This is similar to the Irish Act that I mentioned and also to the Scottish, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand legislation on similar themes. Clause 1(5) states:
“The first condition is that during the whole of the period of five years ending immediately before the intestate’s death the person was living as the intestate’s spouse or civil partner and in the same household as the intestate”.
The five-year period was arrived at because a shorter period would risk catching unawares some elderly cohabitants and overriding a positive decision to remain unmarried and so avoid incurring legal responsibilities. A longer period would exclude many of the people the Bill seeks to help. The report covers this in paragraph 8.85.
The second alternative condition is that the cohabitant lived as the intestate’s spouse or civil partner in the same household as the intestate for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the intestate’s death; and is the other parent of a child of the intestate who was born on or before the date of the intestate’s death; and at that date the child was living in the same household as that person and the intestate. In other words, two years with child, five years without.
The two-year period where the couple have children was arrived at in view of the existing legislation which takes two years as the threshold for making a claim against an intestate’s estate and because it demonstrates a relationship of some permanence. When combined with the fact of sharing children, indicating financial interdependence, seriousness and commitment, the two-year period is sufficient to justify entitlement but prevents the cohabitant from picking up an inappropriate entitlement where the presence of children is an unreliable indicator of commitment and interdependence. Those people who do not satisfy the two-year period but have children with the deceased will, under Clause 3, be able to apply for family provision under the 1975 Act. The report covers this in paragraphs 8.96 to 8.101.
Clause 2 extends to a qualifying cohabitant the current law that, under certain conditions, a surviving spouse or civil partner may use the value of any inheritance from the deceased’s estate and, if necessary, any additional funds to acquire the deceased’s interest in the family home in which the spouse or civil partner lives.
The Bill closes an important gap in the rights and needs of cohabitants and their children. Whereas spouses and civil partners whose partners die intestate are not placed in additional hardship because of the intestacy regime, cohabitants and their children are at risk. The Bill removes the necessity and expense of litigation to individuals and the taxpayer by facilitating inheritance in the event of the death of an intestate cohabitant. It remedies part of a greater injustice and will make some people’s lives a little easier following a bereavement.
I believe in marriage, which may seem old-fashioned, but the Bill does not undermine marriage. It respects the choices made by unmarried cohabiting couples, or the lack of choice through ignorance, and gives some protection to them and their children in the event of death. I hope it will lead to necessary law reform. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I speak to express the strongest opposition to the passage of a Bill that, in a nutshell, will mean a further disinheritance of the children of the many marriages in this country that have ended in divorce, or who were born into unmarried and later broken relationships. It would also, if enacted, amount to an intrusion into private informal relationships—one might even say a denial of the human rights of privacy and respect for family life. There will be no avoiding the long reach of the law and lawyers, even for those who have chosen to live in a way that suits them but not the frameworks of the system. The Bill would transfer wealth from the children of the deceased to his or her cohabiting partner
In its report on intestacy in 2011, the Law Commission recognised the controversial nature of this proposal, which is why it separated it from the rest of its recommendations on intestacy in a separate Bill. It said that its proposal to change the law to give preference to cohabitants’ survivors recognised the vulnerability, intimacy and interdependence of the deceased’s relationships and the impact of bereavement on the partner. But what about the vulnerability and interdependence of the deceased’s surviving children, and the impact of bereavement on them? If enacted, the Bill would simply reverse the burden of challenge on intestacy away from the cohabitant—which is where it is now—on to the family. Cohabiting partners of the deceased already have a way to seek provision from the estate on intestacy, or from a will, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act’s terms were relaxed in recent legislation. The Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 enables a cohabitant of two years’ standing to make a claim without the need to prove dependency, which had been a former requirement. The judges who responded to the Law Commission consultation on intestacy in 2009 pointed out that in such circumstances the matter is better settled by judicial discretion, in rearranging the estate to accommodate the cohabitant if necessary, than by a fixed share which takes most of it away from the children.
Under the existing law, most such claims by cohabitants versus family settle before hearing. Now that there is an official family law arbitration service, claims need not cost as much as they do in court. It is notorious that intestacy claims can be so bitterly litigated that they eat up the disputed assets and the lawyers are the only beneficiaries. In Scots law, the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 does not take this Bill’s approach. The cohabitant’s claims against the deceased’s estate are a matter of discretion, with an upper limit of what a spouse would have received. In doing the calculations in Scotland, the court can take into account the pension of the deceased that may well have been paid to the cohabitant because the deceased hereto can nominate her. In this nation too, the pension can be nominated in favour of the cohabitant and the tenancy will probably automatically pass to her on death; so will the house, if in joint tenancy. The cohabitant might be married or living with someone else too, but that is no bar to a claim. We are not talking of utter deprivation.
To summarise the reasons for opposing this Bill—in addition to children’s rights and human rights arguments—the existing judicial family provision regime is the most appropriate way to decide these issues. It is quite possible that the deceased person did not want his cohabitant to inherit; there will be increased litigation by the blood family against a claimant cohabitant; and many people who know the law want their autonomy, as I will show shortly. Those who do not should be made aware of the situation. There is no more unpleasant and protracted litigation than that between a first wife and children on one side, and on the other the second partner of the deceased man. Although the case of Sherrington—which I know about because the deceased was a friend of mine—was about marriage not cohabitation, the deceased, Richard Sherrington, left everything to his second wife of a short marriage and nothing to his first wife and three adult children. The litigation went on for six years and cost nearly £1 million. It involved minute descriptions of the relationship with the second wife. This would happen in cases more often, and similarly unpleasantly, were this Bill to become law, when of necessity there would be disputes about the duration and nature of the cohabiting relationship.
The Bill is particularly insensitive at this time when there is much consideration of same-sex marriage. If these proposals were to go ahead, we would have a society containing separate regimes for heterosexual and, maybe in future, same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, and family members living together, all with different rights and duties. We need a complete, unified appraisal of all such relationships and no more piecemeal tinkering with legal rights deriving from different forms of sexual relationships that attract attention at any time. The Bill provides that if two people live together for five years, or two years with their child still with them, the surviving cohabitant should take the spousal share of the estate of the intestate cohabitant, provided he was not married to someone else or in a civil partnership. Under the current law that sum is £250,000, with the rest of the estate divided between the partner and the children. If there are no children, then the figure would be £450,000. Since the estates of most of those who do not make wills is smaller than this, in effect the cohabitant survivor would take everything. It is not clear from the Bill whether the exemption from inheritance tax that applies to the married would also apply here.
More than half the population do not have a will. Those who are in possession of significant sums are much more likely to make one than those who do not. So if passed this Bill would in general affect the less well-off. Of the married population, 45% make a will, but only 17% of cohabitants; presumably because they have no belief in any legal consequences of their living styles, whereas the married do. Moreover, cohabitants are more likely to be young, have fewer assets and be less settled. The median age for making a will is 69 for men, 73 for women. In response to the Law Commission’s consultation on cohabitants and intestacy, on which this Bill is based, 40 out of 79 respondents clearly opposed reform. That is hardly an overwhelming consensus in favour of reform. Those respondents who were in favour were in the main the organisations that have a professional interest in this topic, mostly lawyers: Resolution, the Chancery Bar Association, district judges, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Law Society, the Family Law Bar Association, the Family Justice Council and the Official Solicitor. Those who were opposed to the proposals were the judges of the Family Division and the Chancery Division, and individuals. The Law Commission seemed to weight more heavily the responses that favoured regulation.
In another survey, by Williams, Potter and Douglas, it was discovered that younger respondents were less likely to favour cohabitants’ shares than the older. This may be because the young are more likely to cohabit—it peaks in the 20s—and are more aware of the transient, experimental nature of many such relationships. The Law Commission’s main reasoning was that people who live together are ignorant of what their rights might be. This is not an argument that prevails elsewhere in the law; nor does it appreciate quite how well informed the public are in their way, as I shall show. The Law Commission’s consultation paper on this topic did not pay sufficient attention to the crucial question of the deceased’s children by another woman, as distinct from whether he had no children or children by the cohabitant. The proposal that someone who has not committed himself or herself by marriage, or even by making a will, should leave all his or her property to the cohabitant, not his children, makes no sense.
The reported cases of cohabitants’ claims are about childless estates. At most, a life interest in a small share for the cohabitant is all that could be regarded as fair in the circumstances, so that if necessary the cohabitant avoids being in need but does not disinherit the children on her death. The National Centre for Social Research, whose 2010 survey was relied on by the Law Commission, put to people scenarios about intestacy to check their response. It posited a woman dying intestate, which is rather different from the situation most of us think about when we are concerned with this. Even so, less than half the surveyed people would give all of the estate, or priority, to the partner, even after a 25-year cohabitation. With a baby on the scene in the hypothetical short partnership, less than half would give all or priority to the partner, and the majority would give all or some to the baby. In a long childless union of, say, 10 years, only 53% of those surveyed preferred the partner over the deceased’s parents as beneficiaries. There was a strong feeling that the children should not be disinherited and that the partner should get something, but not the lion’s share. As I have said, a life interest in a maximum of 25% would be fair enough.
However, one should not just listen to the professional organisations, as the Law Commission did, without listening to ordinary members of the public who are not being fed possibly leading questions. Whenever I have lectured on this, I have received hundreds of letters opposing more law for cohabitants, but I will not personalise this. I shall quote from the many blogs that have appeared in the Guardian—not the Telegraph:
“I have no intention of allowing my daughter’s inheritance to be diluted by my new or former partner”.
“This is a ridiculous idea. One of the main points of marriage is to show commitment”.
“I knew I didn’t want to marry her, but we stayed and lived together for over a year, so sometimes you live together but aren’t sure”.
“If these proposals are accepted, then the state will effectively marry people whether they like it or not, after a certain number of years. I strongly object to this. The decision for a person to marry should be for them to make and them alone. If accepted, this proposal will effectively strip individuals of the right to live no-strings-attached”.
“I am not for it because some people who cohabit do not believe at all in marriage and all it entails. Cohabitation is a trial run. I am sick to the back teeth about these calls for cohabitee rights. Why should I be denied the right to live with a partner on my own terms because for some bizarre reason some people who wish to live as married do so without actually marrying or setting out their affairs to protect themselves? This proposal is illiberal, complicated and impractical ... it is important to have a clear distinction between marriage and cohabitation so that people know where they are”.
“When is the state going to recognise that cohabiting couples are adults who choose to live their lives that way precisely because they don’t wish busybodies—either religious or state sponsored—poking into their personal affairs”.
“The idea of being treated like a married person when I’m not is just ghastly”.
“This is a very regressive suggestion. It’s also classic nanny state. Want a share in your partner’s money, then ask for it (by marriage)”.
“I was really hoping that this stupid proposal for a new law would go away”.
“The blood sucking lawyers would love the opportunity to leech off a group of people who have either arranged things to suit themselves thus not needing the assistance of the legal profession or simply do not want the law butting into their lives … who in their right mind will live with anybody again unless very committed to the relationship … (they will usually get married anyway)”.
“Totally, totally illogical. It’s marriage by default, folks! Can’t you people see that?”
“People have a legal right to be single and that is that”.
“Extending quasi marital rights to those who have not chosen to enter into a legally binding agreement is not fair at all”.
I could go on because I have pages of these quotes, but to spare noble Lords, the final quote is:
“They move the goalposts so that despite not being married, you can still get your wallet nicked”.
So it is the principled issue of legal recognition of cohabitation that the public is looking at. I will not go into the details of how the definition of cohabitation is dealt with in this Bill, save to make the following general comments on the difficulty of recognising it. In the absence of any legal ceremony or document, how are all those who get involved in probate and death, the family and the officials, to know that there was a cohabitation? Even being together for five years does not necessarily signal permanent commitment of the sort that would attract the legal effect of extending beyond the grave for all time to come at the expense of the family. The fact of sharing a household for two years with a child does not obviously mean that the survivor should get the first £250,000. Who is to know whether the relationship was a sexual one, for even marriages are not always sexually defined? If one person shares a home with another who dies, what is to stop the first falsely claiming that their relationship was intimate?
One has to question, as I have done before, why property transfer applies only to couples in what was presumably a sexual relationship that has ended, and not sisters. Once marriage is abandoned as the clear blue line for legal responsibilities, then logically all relationships—sibling, incestuous, polygamous or whatever—should be treated equally. It is hard to see why it is the sexual element that elevates certain relationships for financial reward, even though they are no more or less co-dependent than others. The result, if this Bill is passed, might be forensic investigation to see whether the relationship that is alleged did actually exist, and more pressure on resources at the time of death, adding to the administrative difficulties that exist at that time anyway; and maybe it would give rise to a new breed of serial cohabitants who stay for one year and 51 weeks if there is a child or four years and 51 weeks if not.
At the time of death, it has been predicted by probate genealogists in relation to this Bill’s effects that much time would have to be expended on searching electoral rolls, tenancy agreements, utility bills and interviewing family members to establish the situation if there might be a cohabitant survivor. It will be hard to know if the person who steps forward to obtain the grant of representation is really the cohabitant, for it would be their task to obtain the grant, not the family members or children. There could be delays of years in settling some estates while this goes on and pressure to settle even where there is no real claim.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Has she looked at jurisdictions in other countries where there is similar legislation that works perfectly well?
Baroness Deech
My Lords, family law in this country does not always follow other countries; sometimes we learn from them. Indeed, sometimes I wish we had followed Scotland when it comes to dividing up proceeds on divorce, but that is another issue.
What about the unregistered Muslim marriage with several surviving legally unmarried “wives”—are they to share?
We come down to the most fundamental issues in death and life—human rights and care for one’s children. We have heard the views of some members of the public. There is a human right to live privately that risks being breached here. Some older divorced and widowed people want companionship, rather than to live on their own, but do not marry again precisely in order to preserve their estate for the children of an earlier marriage. Private adult choices should be respected. There should be no imposition of legal regulation on those who actively choose not to marry and who refrain from making a will, maybe in the belief that their existing family would thereby be protected. If there is hardship for a surviving cohabitant, we have judicial discretion under existing law to remedy it without this shift away from the family that the Bill would bring about. Many say that marriage is just a piece of paper, a lifestyle no superior to cohabitation, and that cohabitants are as committed as any others. So why do those same people want to attach heavy legal significance to cohabitation, mimicking marriage?
I have great sympathy for the younger generation today, who face tuition fees and mortgage burdens vastly heavier than was the case for my age group. If any generation needs care on the death of a father or grandfather it is the young, not the peer group. To deprive them of their inheritance could make all the difference to accessing higher education or buying a house. The cohabitant who might be entitled to the estate under this Bill could well be married to someone else at the time of the deceased’s death, or enter a future marriage or relationship carrying with her the inheritance, gone forever from the deceased’s blood family, to her new family. I see no reason to downgrade the family members in favour of a partner when the deceased did not actively choose to do so. It is not fair to remove maintenance from the children when we have a high divorce rate and widespread failure by men to support their children in their lifetimes. The children who stand to be disinherited by the provisions of this Bill may be the same ones whose support was neglected by their father during his lifetime. The children will have to incur the expense of challenging the intestacy provision rather than the partner: that is the real import of this Bill.
In their responses to the Law Commission, judges said that the child should take priority. Children have no choice in the matter, but the cohabitant survivor may move on to another life and other methods of support. I urge the House to express its principled arguments against this Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. The House will be glad to know that I shall not seek to reply to 23 questions in what I am about to say. I am especially grateful to those who have spoken against my opinions. I always like to hear the other point of view and I remember that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. I am not sure that everyone always remembers those wise words, once spoken to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
This is of course a controversial Bill, which is why it was separated from the larger Bill. In her very full speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said things about the Law Commission with which I do not agree and I would respectfully remind her that the chair of the Law Commission is none other than Lord Justice Munby, an extremely experienced chancery and family law judge. Professor Elizabeth Cooke is the great authority in this area. Of course, the Law Commission is not immune from criticism but I thought that some of the criticisms were not fair.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is true that the Bill would largely affect the less well off, which is its purpose. The tone of what was said was a bit scornful about cohabiting couples and their children—probably inadvertently. I also think that it is important to look at what other countries have done, including the Irish Republic, which is at least as committed to marriage and to religion as are the people of this country.
Of all the speeches I listened to, the one I found the most important from my point of view was that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The thrust of what he said was that piecemeal reform is all very well but one needs to think about more comprehensive reform. I agree with that, which is why in 2008 I introduced my Cohabitation Bill, based on the Law Commission’s proposals, to try to do something broader. That was only four years ago. It took 30 years to get the Human Rights Act, 13 years to get the Equality Act and four years to get the Civil Partnership Act. I hope that we do not have to wait until there is a Labour Government before we can get that kind of comprehensive reform, because it may take a very long time indeed. I hope that although we are in a coalition Government, both partners to the coalition may come to see the wisdom in dealing with the injustices faced by cohabiting couples, the lack of legal protection and how it is the taxpayer above all who has to pick up the pieces because of the inability of successive Governments to tackle the problem.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on behalf of the Opposition, for indicating her support in such warm and generous terms. That is a very important statement. The previous Government almost did the right thing. In 2008, they wanted to do the right thing but it came very late; so they said, “Let’s wait and see what the Scots have done”. The Scots have dealt with the problem and the evidence is clear.
I should deal with one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. He asked, “What about other than cohabitants? How are they to be dealt with?”. The answer to that is that the Government have to respond to the wider recommendations of the Law Commission, I think, by Christmas on the general regime of intestate succession and family provision. We are dealing here only with this little Bill.
If the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill, as I hope it will, I propose to do nothing until the Government have responded, as they must, to the main Law Commission report. I want the Government to have the opportunity to think carefully not only in relation to that broader Bill but also to this Bill as it might fit in. I have enormous confidence in the persuasive powers of my noble friend Lord McNally in being able to convince some of his colleagues that perhaps agnosticism is not good enough and that on this subject we need a bit of action. In fact, we need more than a bit of action: we have waited too long with successive Governments doing nothing at all. The victims are the children and the bereaved in partnerships, especially among the poor and the not so rich. I agree with those who said that the withdrawal of legal aid has aggravated that position greatly. Therefore, there is all the more need for clarity in our law and for a safety net. I will not say more at this stage. I know that a very important debate is about to happen. On that basis, I beg to move.