---

Defamation Law

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. We have had an interesting debate. I congratulate the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on their contributions to the debate; they have done an enormous amount of work on this issue. I was pleased to hear the Minister set out clearly that, although he wants to take action to reform the libel laws, it is a complex matter and a delicate balance that has to be struck. He set out clearly the need to protect academic and scientific debate and investigative journalism, and the problems in respect of the costs in civil proceedings, particularly libel proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) also stressed the need to get the change right, and I think all hon. Members would agree. He also touched on the role of corporations in defamation cases and the possible damage to investigative journalism that can result from that. The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), set out clearly the current state of the law and the damage that can result from that, particularly the problems that we are dealing with in respect of success fees and costs. All the contributions to the debate reflect the real concern about the current state of the law and the complex nature of the reforms that are needed. The Select Committee report on press standards, privacy and libel made a useful contribution to the debate. Others have made useful contributions, too. For instance, a number of early-day motions have been tabled in the House, and English PEN and Index on Censorship produced reports, leading the then Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to set up the Ministry of Justice working group on libel, which produced a report last year. We all face the problem that any reform of the law needs to do a number of different things: it needs to protect the right of free speech, particularly following the Singh case; it needs to protect that right in free scientific debate and inquiry, and it needs to protect the rights of campaigning investigative journalists who publish articles that are in the public interest. But it also needs to ensure that those who are defamed, particularly those of modest means, have recourse to the law to protect their reputation. The hon. Member for Maldon mentioned the libels suffered by Mr and Mrs McCann. I do not think that any hon. Member in this Chamber would suggest that people in such a position ought to be debarred from having recourse to the law because they are not wealthy. We face difficulties in drawing up a new law, but I am pleased that all parties are now committed to doing so. The Labour party manifesto for the election committed us to changing the law to protect the right of defendants to speak freely. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats also committed themselves to reform. I genuinely do not believe that this is a party political issue and I say that as someone who is normally a tribal politician. The House needs to scrutinise this issue carefully to get the balance of the law right. It is clear that so-called libel tourism is causing real concern. In fact, English PEN and Index on Censorship argued that English libel law imposes unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on free speech, and that the effect reaches throughout the world. Many of us might not go as far as that, but it was clear when the Select Committee considered the matter that restrictions may be necessary on claimants whose primary place of residence or business is not in the UK, and that they should perhaps face additional hurdles before being able to bring a case here. It is also clear that the scope of the defence of public interest set out in the Reynolds and Jameel cases needs clarification. I hear what hon. Members have said about the risks of putting that defence into statute—I am minded to go down that route—but we must consider the rule on multiple publication, particularly in the age of the internet. The Select Committee suggested a limitation period of one year, with the courts having discretion to extend that. Again, it was clear that a balance must be struck between allowing individuals to protect their reputation, and ensuring that newspapers and other organisations are not forced to remove articles from the internet simply because the passage of time made it difficult and costly to defend them. The report for the Ministry of Justice set out two options: a one-year limitation rule, or retaining the rule on multiple publications but allowing exceptions—perhaps the extension of qualified privilege or a similar freestanding defence.