Defamation Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Grand Committee

[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 Scott of Foscote]

My Lords, I rise simply to say that for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to which I cannot usefully add, I entirely support his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, first, I join those who have expressed their gratitude to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for not only his approach to engagement but his willingness to listen and persuade the Government that perhaps the draft Bill that was presented to us did not meet the challenge—certainly in this respect—that the Government had set themselves. In fact, I am simply grateful for his willingness to change what was before us. That is reflected in these amendments and in another amendment that we will come to in the next group. I have personally been grateful to him, as has my noble friend Lady Hayter, for his engagement and his willingness to listen, and I add to the thanks given to Sir Brian Neill, who I do not know but who clearly has made a significant contribution to improving the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his work, and the Joint Committee. However many of its members are present—a protean number—it has done us a valuable service.

I should also thank my honourable friends Robert Flello, Helen Goodman and others in the House of Commons who engaged with this in some detail, of necessity because of the then apparent reluctance of the Government to shift on the issue. They debated many matters that we now do not have to debate with some intensity over many hours. It is to be regretted that throughout those debates the Minister at the time appeared unwilling to shift. Behind them there is a broad coalition of people who have campaigned on these issues for a significant period, and who have been represented properly here, who are too numerous in their different forms to mention.

It is probably inevitable that we will disappoint some of their best expectations of the law. There are people out there who still believe that there should be an additional public interest defence that is based on an obligation on the claimant to show malice on the part of those who publish. However, it would appear that that has not found support in your Lordships’ House and come before the Committee. The issue has not gone away and it may come back. At some stage, we will have collectively to come to the point whereby we have made the best of this legislation. We should not make the very best become the enemy of the good.

Secondly, I will make an observation that will not be lost on everyone in this Room, although it may be lost on some noble Lords. I say this with great respect to many of my friends in this Room, but it is interesting to see the chilling effect on other people that my profession can have when debating these complex and difficult issues. I am doing my best in my contributions to try not to add to the chilling effect that lawyers can have on others when they start to engage in the technicalities and obscure corners of these discussions. I constantly keep in front of me in the Bill the objective of trying to find a clear and accessible statement of the law of defamation for England—and partly for Scotland, which I shall deal with in a moment, because there are provisions in the Bill that apply to Scotland and need to be accepted through a process in the Scottish Parliament known as a Sewel Motion.

Despite the fact that the ultimate test of everything that we do here is, “How will this be applied in courts, what can we rely upon judges to do, how can people make arguments, what implications does this word have, what can we assume that that will do?”, at the end of the day people will make decisions in relation to the law of defamation well before there is any engagement with a court. There is overwhelming evidence, particularly in the world of learned—I do not use that word in the legal sense—and informed opinion, that fear of our defamation law is having a substantial and chilling effect on people, not because they do not think that at the end of the day they will be able to persuade a judge that this was a reasonable position to hold or that these facts alone are able to be proved in every jot as defensible, but because, by and large, their observation of the way in which our law works suggests to them that this is too dangerous a business to get involved in, and they would prefer to get on with their science or some other area of their life rather than devote the next two or three years to protecting the position that they justifiably hold and which they would like to get out there for discussion in the public domain.

In any event, I do not have experience of these great cases because I have not contributed to any of the ones that have got the law into this state. I try to avoid approaching that on this basis, and I will make my contribution to the debate on this group of amendments on that basis because I have an amendment that, yet again, appears to come into conflict with the way in which we pass law, with what is necessary and all the rest of it. I want that amendment to be tested against a different standard in these circumstances, for some of the reasons that I have articulated. For those reasons, I am extremely grateful that we have had the benefit of views that may not have been appropriately in point on the amendment before us but which, for people who are not lawyers, set the scene for the reality of the world in which we live. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Hayter agreed to take responsibility for Clause 5 and everything associated with new media. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I will leave it to my noble friend to have a view on whether Twitter and retweeting, which I think is the appropriate active verb, is publication and whether it attracts the responsibilities that are necessitated by this part of the legislation.

I have no doubt that many questions will not be able to be answered, particularly in an environment that is changing as we speak. A later amendment seeks to get some clarity on the word “website”, simply on the basis that no one knows what will be a website, or the equivalent of it, in five years’ time. Yet the word is put here although it may not be litigated on, from the point of view of a definition, for another three or four years. However, this communication world, with which most of us have a passing relationship but are not intimately involved, is changing significantly. We should bear that in mind.

I think that by common consent Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill and, quite rightly, has attracted the most attention. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made clear, it is only part of a suite of defences. It is the most contentious and the most difficult. Effectively, it provides protection for defendants in circumstances where the publication of defamatory material, which is not necessarily true but is in the public interest, can be defended against an allegation of defamation if the publisher, in the previous wording, “acted responsibly”. However, those words are now to be amended to put a slightly different test, which probably would be an easier test for people to understand. However, we are still talking about the same combination of dual factors.

The question is whether this clause, imperfect as it almost certainly is, better meets the requirement. I think that, unanimously, we are of the view that it does. The principal reason is that it reflects better the decision in the case of Flood. It happened after the first drafting took place and, although it is a rather substantial judgment in terms of reading for someone who is not used to reading judgments, essentially it says that one should apply these two tests and that almost any circumstance that is relevant to the issue can be used to prove that the publication was in the public interest.

As one would expect, lawyers take a long time to say that, but I do the judgment no disservice if I say that that is what it says. When I first read the case I was extremely attracted by that approach. I was reinforced in my view by consistent exposure to groups of people who had had a bad experience with the existing law. This was not because they said to me that when they got to the proof or argument of a case they found judges unwilling to listen to their arguments as a whole; rather they said that they were scared to publish because when they go for advice people produce this list and if they cannot tick all the boxes in the list then the advisers say: “You may publish, but our advice would be not to because you will not be able to meet the necessary defence in these circumstances”. That is not a set of circumstances that we should allow to persist and there is no contributor to this debate who thinks that we should.

Either we try to list those factors that are relevant, leaving room for other people to add to them because of the changing world we live in, or we get rid of them altogether. The Minister argues, probably rightly in law, that if we get rid of them altogether it implies that all relevant circumstances have to be considered. The problem is that, whether or not we generate further energy for the cottage industry of lawyers arguing what is relevant to prove public interest, we may find that the courts are persuaded back towards illustrative lists in judgments which then become frozen again as being what the comparatively small number of English judges who do this work will be persuaded by. That is the reason for Amendment 23.

Of course it is unnecessary in one sense. I noted that the Minister three times used the phrase “in all the circumstances of the case”, yet those words are absent from the clause itself. On these Benches we argue that they should be included, not because we think judges or lawyers will not appreciate that that is what they are entitled to look to in order to prove that something is—or somebody reasonably believed it to be—in the public interest, but because, against the history of how we got to this stage, it is worth Parliament saying that, in changing the law, we are moving away from a checklist approach. So far, we are saying that there is no limit to the circumstances or the factors that you can bring to make your argument that something was—or you reasonably believed it was—in the public interest. We want to make that clear to everyone.

We would put this in the Bill not because anybody has cleverly suggested to us that, without it, judges would not allow us to do that. However, when you are making decisions about publishing anything, in any circumstances, you ought to know that, whatever the factors are, if you hold opinions reasonably and if they go towards the public interest, any attack that is made on you to the effect that you were not justified in publishing them will be irrelevant. I suspect, because I have stood in the position of the Minister at another Dispatch Box, that the Government will resist that. I suspect that lawyers, too, will resist it. However, my suspicion is that all the non-lawyers in the Room, and the people out there who have lived in the environment where they have been forced to engage with lists of things, would welcome it. They would think that Parliament had got it and was giving them a degree of freedom that they had not had before. I urge the Committee, and ask the Government, to consider that this, although not a necessary thing to do, would be an important thing to do.

[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.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

It affects Wales, too.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Of course it does. I am sorry.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I come very late to this legislation, having devoted myself over recent years merely to deciding defamatory cases. I am enormously glad that the House is proposing to simplify and clarify the law and, in that respect, to raise the bar. However, noble Lords should recognise—as assuredly the courts will recognise, if and when they come to apply the clause—that it is implicit that the defence will apply even when it is assumed that the defamatory statement is wholly untrue, even when there is no possibility of it attracting the Clause 3 defence of honest opinion, and even when assuming that it is not privileged. Amendment 14 to Clause 4(1)(b) inserts a defence that,

“the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”,

notwithstanding that it was untrue, not the subject of honest opinion, and unprivileged.

I support Amendment 14, although not Amendment 23, because I value freedom of expression and freedom of speech so highly as to justify, on occasion, the destruction of an individual’s reputation without his having any opportunity whatever to vindicate himself. Noble Lords should recognise that that is the price exacted for the provision of a defence in the interest of freedom of speech.

There can be no question that in applying such a clause the court is bound to have regard to all the circumstances. Time and again it has been made perfectly plain that the Reynolds list is non-exhaustive. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, said so, and in the recent Flood case in the Supreme Court, in which I was involved, not only did we say that in terms, but we brought into account various factors and considerations that did not feature in the Reynolds list.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Browne of Ladyton]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord and am pleased to have given him the opportunity to make the speech that he wished he had made in supporting his amendment. Now that I have the noble Lord’s support, I can summarise my argument in relation to my amendment by saying that I am reinforced in the view that it would appear the common law is still developing. The Government’s wording in the draft Bill, and even the wording proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment—I sympathise with his attempt to try to make two subsections one subsection—broadly restricts the defence specifically in relation to the reporting of a dispute to which the claimant has to be a party. I did not understand that to be the common law of England and I now have support for that view. If there was a justification and a necessity for this provision, I suspect that it arose from the way in which the clause was framed previously. For the reasons expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, it is no longer necessary.

I hope that the Government will go away and think about that but if they insist on retaining this subsection in the Bill, I propose that we should delete the qualification of the dispute because it does not refer to the common law and is a restriction. I do not think that the Government intend to restrict this defence.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I intervene with great temerity given this incredibly legal provision. However, as an outsider, I cannot understand why the courts should not be allowed to determine whether or not someone has behaved responsibly. If a large organisation is involved, it should have to verify the information or take some reasonable steps before repeating an appalling slander, libel or whatever it may be. I cannot see why we should restrict the courts’ ability to look at all the circumstances by retaining the relevant measure. Therefore, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.