Defamation Bill

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

My major point is that the two lines at the end of Clause 2 are not necessary and, above all, give an entirely wrong impression to the public of what the clause is trying to do and of the beneficial impact and effect that it could have. I said at the start that the amendment had the support of a wide range of individuals, and, in varying degrees, of two political parties. The only party that has not proclaimed its position is the Liberal Democrats. It may be just my luck that this debate will be replied to by a Liberal Democrat Minister. However, as always, I am an optimist in these things. My noble friend and I are old allies who have fought a number of causes together, and my hope is that the alliance will hold good on this amendment. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now to put the debate in context. I confirm that my noble friend Lord Fowler and I have been close allies in many battles for press freedom over the decades, and I assure him that this reply comes from a government Minister.

My noble friend’s amendment seeks to remove from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, which was agreed on Report, a section that goes beyond Leveson in requiring the courts to take account of pre-publication advice from the new regulator in considering whether to avoid exemplary damages.

When we debated the main amendment on Report, I was clear that our objective in respect of Leveson must be to achieve a cross-party endorsement of a solution that works in parliamentary and legislative terms, and has general public support. On Report, I promised that a draft royal charter would be published. This has now been published. It illustrates one example of how a recognition body might be constituted to underpin the tough system of self-regulation for the press that Lord Justice Leveson recommended.

The draft charter is under active consideration in the cross-party talks, and it is important that we allow the talks to progress and reach their conclusion. I have made clear my reservations about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, being shoe-horned into the Defamation Bill. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments today. The Puttnam amendment is now part of the Bill, which should now be returned to the Commons.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Fowler is welcome in so far as it will remove an element of the Puttnam amendment that went further than Lord Justice Leveson recommended. No one wants to see Leveson implemented more than I do, but the tripartite talks are the key to achieving that objective, not the Bill as now amended. We should continue to allow the parties the space to agree the most appropriate solution within the tripartite talks.

In so much as he is amending a clause that we do not consider to be effective and which pre-empts what I hope will be a successful outcome to those tripartite discussions, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, makes an unacceptable position marginally better. I shall not ask noble Lords to vote against the amendment, although the overall position will remain that we believe the amendment to be unacceptable.

I shall say that again slowly. I am looking at my words. Basically, I am suggesting that the House should pass the amendment and that the Government will not oppose it. The amended Bill will then go to the Commons for consideration and will come back at ping pong for what I suspect will be a lively debate. However, by then the tripartite talks might have succeeded—I sincerely hope they will have—and my Defamation Bill, which I think unamended is perfectly formed, could then be passed by this House. Those are my recommendations.

Amendment 1 agreed.