Defamation Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to make a short contribution in what, so far, has been a consensual debate. It has been consensual partly because of the experience of many of the people who have participated and the knowledge they have brought to bear. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the organisations, individuals and Committees that have pushed this issue over many years. It looks as though we are close to a resolution.

The Lib Dem manifesto in 2010 stated that we

“believe it is an individual’s right to live their lives as they see fit, without discrimination, with personal privacy, and with equal rights before the law.”

We went on to say that we will:

“Protect free speech, investigative journalism and academic peer-reviewed publishing through reform of…libel laws—including by requiring corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness, and by providing a robust responsible journalism defence.”

Clearly, as we have heard tonight, other parties also committed to reform of the libel laws, and it is with great pleasure that the coalition Government have picked up this issue and clearly stated that we will review the libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

Many hon. Members have set out the reasons for reviewing the libel laws, drawing attention to the fact that although our libel laws have developed over many centuries, they are now outdated and are struggling to keep up to date with technology. It is embarrassing that foreigners can be sued in our courts on weak pretexts and that that has led the United Nations Human Rights Committee to take the view that our laws

“discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work”

and that libel tourism could

“affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest”.

The Justice Secretary said earlier that he did not think it was fair to describe our laws as an international “laughing stock”, and perhaps that is a little too strong, but I think that all hon. Members here this evening could agree that we should be seeking to make our laws an international blueprint.

We have all-party consensus on this issue, and we know from very recent history that that is not always the case on justice issues. It would be regrettable if we wasted that consensus. As has been said, by the shadow Justice Secretary I believe, only three Bills have touched on the subject of defamation since 1852, so it would be a pity if we did not use this opportunity to get this right. It would be particularly regrettable given that, as far as I am aware, no vocal and organised lobby is campaigning against these proposals. Individuals, particularly those with a legal background, have perhaps been lobbied personally, but I am not aware of a groundswell of opinion opposing what the Government are proposing, and that surely presents an opportunity to push a little harder than the Bill proposes.

A number of hon. Members have said that it is difficult to future-proof the legislation, but we need to ensure that as far as is possible it is future-proofed, because, as I and others have stated, these Bills come around only every 50, 60 or 70 years. When dealing with an issue such as libel, what we are really talking about is context, content, level of harm, author and intent, and those issues should, to a great extent, be technology-independent. If we have to come back to this issue every time the next Facebook or Twitter is developed, we will be chasing our tails year after year.

I said that there is scope for improvement to the Bill, and the Libel Reform Campaign, which has been prominent in pushing this issue, has identified areas where it believes a good start has been made, and I would agree with a single publication rule preventing perpetual liability owing to internet publication. We all know that once something is out there on the internet it is almost impossible to get rid of it, and it will continue to circulate without anyone being able to exercise any real controls over it. The LRC welcomes, as we do, the fact that we are introducing measures to ensure that libel tourism is stopped, even if it is not happening on the scale that people believe.

Other developments include withdrawing or restricting the right to trial by jury in such cases. Almost every hon. Member would normally be clamouring to maintain that, but it seems that there is almost unanimity on its inappropriateness to most libel cases.

Many hon. Members have referred to the areas where improvement can be made, so I will not dwell at too great a length on them, but they are: the public interest defence; the serious harm test; corporations; and, finally, protection for internet hosts and intermediaries, on which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants to spend some time later, if he is lucky enough to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye. The exchange between him and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) highlighted that there are some differences on the sort of protection that can or should be provided to internet hosts and intermediaries, and to individuals who are being attacked by trolls using that sort of technology.

I am sure that the Minister has received the Libel Reform Campaign briefing—I have it here and I am sure he recognises it—which sets out some challenges to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond in detail, even if he is not able to do so today. I hope he will confirm whether, in his view, its concerns are being addressed by the Bill, and if that is not the case, whether the Government will endeavour to address them. If they believe the concerns are unjustified, I hope he will explain why. It would be in keeping with the way in which these exchanges have taken place so far—I believe that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) referred to the consensual and open attitude that Lord McNally had adopted in relation to discussions on this matter—for there to be ongoing dialogue and improvements to the Bill.

On clause 4, the LRC recommends

“an additional defence…which protects genuine public interest statements made in good faith.”

It highlights the fact that that might limit the occasions on which the expense of a full trial was required. In other areas of justice, the Government have rightly been saying that we want earlier settlement, mediation and conciliation, so there must be a good case for ensuring that matters do not reach a full trial.

The LRC wants to see changes that

“shift the burden of proof to the claimant to show that the publication (on a matter of public interest) was irresponsibly published.”

It also believes that

“the nature of the publication should always be taken into account so that small or solo publishers (such as bloggers) are not held to the same standard in running a defence as a newspaper.”

Those are perfectly valid queries or challenges to the Government, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. The LRC also identifies some concerns about clause 1 and the serious harm test, and the extent to which it goes any further than simply restating the existing common law position. I hope that the Minister will be able to pick up on those concerns, too.

Corporations have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I have already quoted from the Lib Dem manifesto; we specifically identified the area as one that we wanted addressed. It is absent from the Bill but I hope that some amendment or amelioration will be possible. Corporations are not individuals and should not have the same rights. Clearly, if individual directors were libelled they should have the same rights, but considering the extent to which corporations can use libel laws to manage their brand, as the Libel Reform Campaign has put it, we should be very careful to ensure that that cannot happen. It should not be simply about protecting an image as opposed to any real or substantial harm that might have been incurred as a result of comments that people might have made.

I promised to keep my remarks short and I always keep my word. We have made good progress on the Bill and I hope that the open approach that has been adopted so far by Lord McNally and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will continue. The Bill can be improved. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so let us not pass it by.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I thought I might throw a few pebbles into the pond of consensus that there has been so far. We have had near enough five hours of consensus. It is now time to hear a little from the other side.

First, as a general principle, when all parties agree on something, it is usually a mistake. We have found that historically. The cut and thrust of debate, with one side saying one thing and the other putting forward the alternative view, is enormously powerful in getting to the right answer. I am rather suspicious when we have a lawyerly committee that comes together. I am so pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), to break into the lawyerly cabal and give the view from the layman. So first, I have a suspicion of consensus in principle.

Secondly, as my doubts were beginning to grow, at the end of his fine speech, the Lord Chancellor said that this was a “sound piece of modernising” legislation. It seems to me that the words “sound” and “modernising” never go together. If something is modernising, one ought to be suspicious of it. We had modernising from 1997 to 2010 and it almost bankrupted the nation. Therefore, “sound” and “modernising” are not compatible.

I think back, of course, to the coalition agreement. It is a great pleasure and a daily joy for all of us to be in coalition with our Lib Dem friends, allies, compatriots.

[Tom Brake]

The feeling is mutual.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so pleased to hear that it is mutual. I say that for the benefit of the Hansard Reporters in case they did not catch it, although they have such sharp ears that I am sure they did.

The Bill is something that the Lib Dems asked for in the coalition agreement. It is a major piece of legislation, which we are pushing through at the very earliest stage of the second Session of Parliament. We should remind the Lib Dems that this is their legislation. When they come back and ask for more legislation later in the Session, perhaps to do with constitutional reform, we can remind them that they have had their fair share and that we have been relatively sotto voce about our concerns over this Bill, so they cannot expect to have any more.

[Tom Brake]

Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that this Bill is very short, and that it therefore should not constitute our entire contribution to the coalition’s programme?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I have been listening for the last five hours to how amazingly important the Bill is and to the view that it is short but perfectly formed. It seems to me, therefore, that the power of the Bill and the effect it will have should not be underestimated when we look at the scales of coalition balance. At the moment, they are weighing down heavily on the Lib Dem side and I think that we might need a little counterweight for the Conservatives later in the Session.

I want to consider the merits of the Bill and the whole idea of what we are trying to achieve. We have heard from other Members about freedom of speech, which is something of the utmost importance—the cliché of the evening, but it is a true cliché. Freedom of speech is under attack from the Leveson inquiry, which wishes to bind down journalists to rules of good behaviour, and sometimes from libel lawyers.

However, we should also consider the question of reputation, defamation and how we should protect people when they feel they have been hard done by. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) quoted Shakespeare. Two can play at that game, so I though I would too:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

Who steals my purse steals trash—”

in my case butterflies and moths, and things like that—

“‘tis something, nothing;

‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.”

So it is right that there is some protection in our legal system for people’s good name, even though that impinges on freedom of speech.

There are already many protections in the law for freedom of speech. We are fortunate to enjoy under the Bill of Rights an absolute privilege for anything that we say in this Chamber. It can never be used in any court of law. We can be as rude about people as we like—not that I am going to use that privilege this evening, but it is a privilege of absolute free speech.

It is to be welcomed that the Bill maintains that truth should be a defence in a defamation action. That seems perfectly sensible and wise, although I know Pontius Pilate questioned what truth was, and there is always that issue to consider. Truth is not necessarily as absolute as it can sometimes be thought to be off the cuff, so to speak. There are elements and forms of truth, and of course in the oath that people take in courts there is “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, indicating different levels of truth.

Fair comment, which has been allowed in the past, is now being made clearly part of the law, which is absolutely splendid. If people wish to air their disagreements and phrase themselves strongly, that is all to the good and to be encouraged, and it should be protected as part of free speech. However, what if the defamation is serious? What penalties should there be then? Who should decide, and who should be charged?

I am concerned about the liberties that we are giving to internet service providers and to people who are responsible for websites but deny any responsibility for their content. They become more and more powerful as time goes on. There are two or three firms that dominate the world in that sense, but they are not necessarily on the side of the individual who is defamed.

I had my own little issue with somebody who set up a highly amusing Twitter account in my name. It was not done by me—it was much funnier than I could ever have been—but there was nothing that I could do to stop it. It went on churning out comments that some journalists thought I had made. I always thought I could say my own silly things without anybody saying them on my behalf. There needs to be some recourse for people who are impersonated and defamed through that impersonation. The responsibility ought to lie with the internet companies, which ought not to have a great exemption that allows them to tarnish people’s reputations without any great difficulty.

I have some specific concerns about the Bill and the argument that has been developed today. The first is about jury trials. We heard from the Lord Chancellor and others very good arguments for getting rid of juries—that they are expensive, that they are inconvenient, that they make the process more difficult for m’learned friends. However, that requires that we should have absolute faith in the wisdom of judges, and personally I do not. They are broadly good and wise eggs and do their best under difficult circumstances, but they are not omniscient. I feel that if my reputation were on the line, it would be safer in the hands of 12 good and true men and women of this country—ideally, of course, of Somerset. That would be the best way to protect one’s reputation. I accept that it is expensive, but it is more just.

That is particularly important in any libel case that has a political tint about it, because judges are part of the establishment. They are there, in some ways, to uphold the establishment, and we see from some of what they come up with when commissioned by the Government to write learned reports that they often fall on the side of the establishment. Lord Hutton was the supreme example of that a few years ago when he produced a most extraordinary whitewash of all that had gone on over the Iraq affair. I therefore do not believe it is right or wise to use the argument of convenience, which could be used to abolish juries in every trial in the land for all time.