| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Licensing Act 1964 (Amendment)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed.[Bill 140.]
Orders of the Day
Defamation Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
5.13 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a law reform Bill that has a slightly unusual history and derivation. There have been not one but three consultation exercises in England and Wales, and additional consultation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, that led to the Bill being introduced in another place. The House will be aware that it was while it was in the other place that an addition was made that has a special significance for Members of the House. Although that addition appears towards the end of the Bill, I shall--with hon. Members' leave--explain the provision separately, before turning to the more general law reform provisions in the Bill.
Clause 14 would allow an hon. Member or any other person whose conduct in relation to parliamentary proceedings is an issue in an action for defamation to waive protection, such as that given by the Bill of Rights so as to enable evidence to be given and findings to be made in court about his conduct in Parliament. At the same time, the clause preserves the essential protection afforded by the Bill of Rights to Members of both Houses and other persons, such as witnesses before Select Committees, from any legal liability for what they may have said or done during proceedings in Parliament. That is the historic basis of free speech in Parliament, which must be preserved.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Evans:
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I shall complete this passage. The House will want to know exactly what the Government's position is.
The clause also provides that a waiver by one person will not affect the protection afforded to any other person who does not choose to waive it.
Mr. Carlile:
Why do the Government appear to be in favour of granting the right to waiver to an individual Member of Parliament? Why do they not give that right to the Privileges Committee, which could then consider the issue and--if it thinks appropriate and while retaining the privileges of the House--give permission to the individual hon. Member to waive protection?
Mr. Evans:
I want to continue with my speech, because it would be helpful if I outlined the Government's position in relation to the clause.
The matter has arisen following the libel case brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) against The Guardian. The case was stayed on the grounds that it could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about my hon. Friend's conduct in Parliament--the subject of the allegations against him--and that evidence could not be heard because of the prohibition in
the Bill of Rights on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. At about the same time, an action brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was similarly stayed.
If this clause were enacted, any hon. Member who wished to would be able to waive his or her protection for the purposes of the defamation proceedings. The defendants would be able to call evidence to justify their published allegations and the issue between them and the hon. Member could be tried by the court.
This is a Government Bill, but not a Government clause. It was introduced for debate by one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffmann. The Government recognise that the problem raised by my hon. Friends' cases is a real one, but as far as the solution proposed by the clause is concerned, the Government are neutral. We regard this as a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government, to decide, since it raises important questions touching on the Bill of Rights and the privileges of the House.
The concern of Ministers is that this issue should be properly ventilated in debate. I hope that hon. Members will find an opportunity to study the proceedings on Third Reading in another place, when the case for and against the clause was fully argued. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members as the Bill proceeds through its later stages.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
As this is an extremely important matter and as there is a variety of business before the House today, is it my hon. Friend's intention that the matter should form the subject of a special debate on Report on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Evans:
I anticipate that the clause will be dealt with at that point.
Mr. John Morris (Aberavon):
The Minister said, properly, that the Government are neutral, and that was the view of the Lord Chancellor in another place. What would be the attitude of the Government to a proposal that the matter should go to a Select Committee of both Houses?
Mr. Evans:
The issue was the subject of a full debate in another place. I have studied the debate, and I was present for a part of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there was a full debate in the other place, during which clear arguments for both sides were made. In those circumstances, the means of disposing of the matter that I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would seem to be the appropriate way of proceeding.
I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I do not want to detain the House on Second Reading, but I want to get this point absolutely clear. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that whatever view one takes, this issue goes right to the heart of the privilege of Members of Parliament. It is terribly important that the debate on the matter is not time-constrained. I do not wish to detain the House by making a five-minute speech today--I am sure that other
Mr. Evans:
I shall take into account my hon. Friend's observations, but that is a matter for the usual channels to resolve. I am sure that his views will be taken into consideration.
On the other provisions, I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill, which were sent to them during our consultation exercise last summer.
Mr. Alex Carlile:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but this matter arises from what was just said about an extremely important issue--one about which many of us are greatly concerned. Is it correct that no Minister can guarantee a debate on any particular issue on Report as that is a matter for Madam Speaker? As we go through what is bound to be a short debate because we are time-constrained, perhaps the Minister or the Leader of the House can help us to understand how we can be guaranteed a debate on the Floor of the House on a matter that goes to the root of parliamentary accountability.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. The more points of order there are, the longer we will take to debate the issue. The Chair has ears, as well as the usual channels.
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
The consultation exercise undertaken last summer was a relatively new pattern of consultation, in which we published a complete draft Bill, with brief explanatory notes, inviting views on the detailed drafting, structure and presentation of legislation to implement important reforms to defamation law and procedure, which the Government had already announced. That consultation proved immensely valuable and we were able to make a number of useful modifications and improvements when preparing the Bill for introduction.
Full notes on clauses are available for any hon. Members who wants to examine the provisions in greater detail. Fuller explanations of the current law and the need for reform may be found in the published consultation documents. The Bill brings together defamation reform proposals from several separate sources. A substantial part of the Bill implements recommendations made by the working group set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, in response to the Lord Chancellor's invitation to the Supreme Court procedure committee to examine the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases and to propose reforms.
We published the working group's report on "Practice and Procedure in Defamation" for consultation in July 1991. We are indebted to Lord Justice Neill and his colleagues for all the work and assistance that they have given us, not only in identifying the problems and proposing solutions in their report, but during the process of working the proposals up into a legislative form for implementation. Lord Hoffmann also played a major role at the very earliest stage, as he suggested to the Lord Chancellor that a special regime should be set up for the summary hearing of defamation claims. That is to be found in clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill. I should like to express my gratitude for those valuable contributions and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in doing so.
The other reform proposal--in clause 1 of the Bill--is the result of the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper, "The Defence of Innocent Dissemination", which was published in July 1990. While the Lord Chancellor's review of defamation law began as a review of the law in England and Wales, many of the changes introduced by the Bill will apply in Scotland as well, as although there are some differences in both the substantive law and the procedures, the systems are broadly similar. The reforms will also apply to Northern Ireland.
I propose to explain the Bill's provisions in fairly broad terms. Clause 1 contains a new statutory defence, which will supersede the common law defence of innocent dissemination. That defence has always been subject to some uncertainty, particularly as to who could rely on it, and those uncertainties have inevitably increased as modern technology has provided us with entirely new concepts in communication.
The statutory defence concentrates on the concept of responsibility for publication. It will not be available to authors, editors or publishers--in the commercial sense--of defamatory material, but it will be available to others whose work may in some way have contributed to the publication of defamatory material that someone else has chosen to publish, unless they knowingly took part in producing a defamatory publication, or had reason to believe that they were doing so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |