Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have said.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, from the Government, on bringing forward his amendment, which also incorporates the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The noble Baroness stood up and could not be deterred— I am glad that this has been a good result.

Noble Lords might want to know why the Government have put forward this amendment. A notification from the BBC came to my mobile at 1 pm. It had to do with Naga Munchetty, who says:

“Scammers spread fake nude pictures of me on social media”.


The scammers have written an article—which is absolutely false—saying, for example, that the Government have ordered Naga Munchetty to be detained, and it includes a lot of nude pictures. Given what the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, have done, that lady will feel that we are moving forward.

Finally, I say that soliciting must be in the Bill; reasonable doubt, or whatever other view, must be out; and imprisonment must be in the Bill.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

In speaking to this group of amendments, I am mindful of the admonition from my noble friend the Chief Whip to respect the rules of the House, and I look at the advice that we are given on today’s agenda about how to conduct oneself in these circumstances, so I have no intention of repeating what the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have said, because I agree with every single word of it—and I agree with all the endorsements of the arguments that they have put forward. However, I want to make a contribution to this debate about the purpose of all this and what the issue is.

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I remember dealing with those types of questions while I was an Opposition Minister in the Home Office. Whether Articles 8 and 10 are indeed breached by these cameras is a very live question; they are everywhere and they are being used in ways that we do not always understand. The noble Lord makes a good point.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interest of cross-party amity—an ambition that I know my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock shares—it is important when celebrating something as significant as the ECHR’s founding to assign credit where it is due. Given that Churchill called the ECHR into being, David Maxwell Fyfe and Harold Macmillan were instrumental in its drafting, and Margaret Thatcher described our membership as “common sense”, will my noble friend the Minister strain every nerve to ensure that the Conservative Party is given due prominence and credit as we celebrate this anniversary?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am happy to agree with what my noble friend said. I want to mention one other name, that of my former honourable friend Terry Davis MP, who has died, and whose funeral is at the end of this month. He was Secretary-General of the Council of Europe between 2004 and 2009.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is pleasure to rise to support this Bill and to commend the diligence and clear-sighted determination that has led the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, to bring it to your Lordships’ House today. I add my congratulations and thanks to those from all parts of the House for her doing so.

We have already heard the eloquent and persuasive testimony as to why this survivor-led Bill is needed, how its provisions close gaps in legislation and why the time is now to engage with these challenges. In the context of the cross-government mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly signalled her determination—she is not alone in doing this, by the way, among Ministers—to arrest the rise in extreme misogyny.

At this point in my speech, I want to make the point that I most came here to make, and which draws on the speech made by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth and the reference the noble Baroness made in her opening speech to a quote from the Home Secretary. On 3 December, in a statement about stalking, the Home Secretary said:

“Let us be clear—we will use every tool available to us to give more power to victims and take it away from the hands of their abusers”.


That is what this Bill does. This tool is available, and it is available now.

My noble friend the Minister is an invidious position in this debate. I suspect that he agrees with the provisions of this Bill, but that he has to say that this is not the right vehicle for them. I challenge him to act according to all the exemptions in this elegantly drafted piece of potential legislation, which says, “You can do that if you have a reasonable excuse”. That just means an excuse with a reason. What is the reason why the Government will not live up to those strongly supported words of the Home Secretary, who said that the Government will use “every tool available” to take power from abusers and give it to victims? There is an obligation, given the nature of this debate thus far, on the Government in this case not to say, “We agree with the principle but this is not the right vehicle”. Why is that the case? If my noble friend can convince me, I will wait until the right vehicle comes along. But in short, the right vehicle is here, and it will be ridiculous if we do not take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to confirm the point that my noble friend has raised. In fact, in my briefing, the words “in this Session” are underlined—so, yes, that is indeed the case.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Can I ask my noble friend a very simple question? Do the Government anticipate that any woman or girl will ever consent to the creation of what this legislation is aimed at—deepfake pornography to be used for revenge or for misogynistic reasons?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend raised that point with me the other day, and I checked it with advisers in the department. I think it would be unwise to assume that a woman would never, under any circumstances, consent to images being made.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. I am happy to give that undertaking. As I mentioned, there is a Council of Europe initiative going on, but clearly we should, and we will, look at the EU directive.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box. Recognising that the Government are planning a review, do they still agree that there is an urgent need for a stand-alone anti-SLAPP Bill, and that the lack of legislation will see SLAPP litigations continue? In the words of our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, as already mentioned, and as reported in the i newspaper on 3 June, they will continue effectively to stifle

“not just the rule of law and freedom of speech, but particularly … journalists doing their job to throw a spotlight and transparency on the most egregious behaviour of oligarchy, plutocracy, and very corrupt individuals doing bad things”.

Surely we need to stop that as soon as possible.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. I cannot make a commitment to a stand-alone Bill, but there is nevertheless an urgent need for legislation. My noble friend may be interested to know that the number of Russian litigants appearing in judgments from the Commercial Court has more than halved in the year to March 2024, falling to 27 from a record high of 58. We believe that that is a result of the successful UK sanctions regime taking effect.

Prison Capacity

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate. New prison places are important and we will build more prisons—prisons we are proud of. So far as the public narrative goes, I could not agree more, but I have confidence in the fact that 20 years ago, when I first started recruiting people from prison, no one thought it was a good idea. Now, every company I meet thinks it is a good idea. It proves that changing perception when it comes to offenders and prisons takes time. I hope to be in this role longer than many other people who have done my role, and to be able to get into the detail and try to get prisons we are proud of.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, to the Dispatch Box as the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation. From the noise the House made earlier, I think I am not alone in thinking that he is probably the best man for the job. I suppose I should draw attention to my entry in the register of interests; I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. In fact, I presently have another interest that I suppose is not yet registered, in that I have a pair of shoes in my local Timpson for repair.

Speaking to Channel 4 News earlier this year, my noble friend said that in his view only one-third of people in prison needed to be there. In order to emphasise that radically reducing the prison population is not impossible, he added that the Netherlands had halved its prison population while reducing crime. That contradicts what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, implied in what I can describe only as a plea in mitigation on behalf of the previous Government, which was that these two things were impossible. I know the Minister has studied this. How did the Netherlands manage to reduce crime and reduce the prison population by almost half?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Before we look at any other countries and international comparisons, we need to fix the system we have first. Before we can do anything on reducing reoffending and having prisons we are proud of, we need to stabilise the system. It is our first priority. We need to fix it, and we need to fix the capacity so that we do not have this problem again. We need to enable our fantastic staff in our prisons and Probation Services to do what they want to do, to put the building blocks in place so people who go to prison have a much better chance of not going back.

European Court of Human Rights: Rule 39

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

On the latter point, I do not presume to cast any kind of judgment on or make any comparison between the United Kingdom and other contracting states. On the general point about acceptance in practice of the position of interim measures under the convention, there are two legal views.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the context of this Question requires consideration of more than one case. Between 2020 and 2022, of the 161 applications for interim measures against the UK Government, only 12 were granted by the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Minister’s responses thus far indicate that the Government no longer stand by Clause 24 of the Bill of Rights Bill, which, if enacted, requires courts to ignore interim measures. Until now, we have been told that that is an expression of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on the first aspect, if I may speak on behalf of the United Kingdom and all Governments, the Government have a commendable record on interim measures. I fully agree that you cannot judge the underlying legal and practical questions by just one case. On the issue of the Bill of Rights Bill, I think the focus should now be on Clause 53 of the Illegal Migration Bill, which I am sure we will discuss in great detail in Committee.

European Court of Human Rights

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the Al-Skeini judgment has raised various problems, and part of the Bill that will shortly be before your Lordships is intended to deal with the question of the extraterritorial ambit of the convention.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, on the day of the publication of the Bill of Rights Bill, the Minister, writing for ConservativeHome, described it as a “modern framework” for human rights. In Clause 24(3), the Bill instructs judges not to have regard to any interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Would the Minister like to explain to President Zelensky how that is consistent with a modern framework when, in the case of Ukraine v Russia, he successfully gained an interim measure against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights to constrain it from using military force against civilians?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The position of interim measures under the convention, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court and its rules of procedure, is a matter of great delicacy that at the moment is in effect being scrutinised in the Rwanda proceedings currently before the High Court in this country. I think it inappropriate to go further, but the provision in the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred is, in the Government’s view, entirely in accordance with the convention.

Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as well as concern that English law is still being abused by threats and court action from powerful individuals against journalists and authors reporting on financial crime and corruption, there is credible evidence of women who have alleged abuse facing libel threats and actions from wealthy men as it has proved an effective way to shut women up. Does not the defence of legitimate debate, freedom of expression, safety of journalists, exposure of corruption and encouragement of women to report violence and abuse demand at least a review and reassessment of the measures that can be taken to prevent such actions by corrupt, violent and wealthy figures?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. There are, of course, the defences of truth and, in relation to what is said in court, there is of course absolute privilege. As the Minister who played a significant part in taking the Domestic Abuse Act through this House, I will certainly want to ensure that the protections it gave to women are not undermined by people exploiting the law of defamation.

Independent Review of Administrative Law Update

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments on the report. I think the consultation period is six weeks. As soon as we have the responses in, we will work at pace to bring back the Government’s response to that consultation.

On ouster clauses and the decision in Miller II, perhaps I should merely stick to what I have said so far. I do not really want to get dragged into an analysis of Miller II this evening.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the former head of the Government Legal Service, Sir Jonathan Jones, as quoted in the Law Society Gazette, that:

“The review doesn’t bear out the suggestion that there has been significant judicial overreach or a surge of cases in recent years, or that large numbers of unmeritorious cases are being allowed to proceed”?


If so, why does the Statement imply the opposite? Further, does he agree with Sir Jonathan that:

“The proposal that remedies might be available only prospectively will, at least, have to allow for exceptions”


if only to

“avoid the risk of serious injustice to claimants who have already suffered loss or damage”?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, on the first point, I respectfully disagree with the comments of Sir Jonathan, whom I respect very much. In conclusion 7, particularly the first two sentences of that paragraph, it seems to me that the panel is clear that there are cases where the courts have gone beyond a supervisory approach.

On the question of potential injustice for those who have suffered, if one is going to have a suspended quashing order or a prospective remedy, as I have made clear, that is something that we are interested in consulting on. Indeed, I would welcome the noble Lord’s involvement in that consultation.

Defamation Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I wish to make a short point. I wholly agree with what my noble friend Lord Lester said about the confusing drafting of Clause 4(2). It is a most barbaric concoction and, coming in an age when we are all trying to make legislation as accessible as possible to other than legal experts, it really will not do. One particular aspect adds to its inadequacy; namely, reference to,

“an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party”.

I do not quite see why this clause should apply only to a dispute to which a claimant was a party. Why would it not apply to a matter in which the claimant had an interest? There may be no dispute there but it could be to do with a campaign where again there is no dispute. Apart from the generality, that is a bit of a drawback.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I have no amendment in this group but I wish to speak partly in support of Amendments 6 and 7. I am persuaded, I think, that Amendment 7 may bring more to the clarity of this legislation than Amendment 6. I also wish to express some concerns about Amendments 6 and 7, which require clarification. I hope that we will be able to get that clarification from the Minister and perhaps reflect during the rest of the process of this Bill on whether the total effect of Amendments 6 and 7 will be as is being argued.

I approach this from a slightly different perspective. My reading of the effect of these amendments is that they are designed to improve Clause 4, which I accept, but that they would remove the element of subjectivity in the test of whether the publication was in the public interest. The clause has been substantially amended and, in fact, it has been recast. That has been welcomed, particularly by the promoters of these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made clear at the outset. This is a much improved clause but, as I understand it, the aim has been to move away from Reynolds but to reflect the case of Flood in the law.