| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Streeter: I am glad that the amendments have been tabled. We have had a useful debate about the important new defence that has been introduced in clause 1.
However, I believe that amendment No. 26, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham(Mr. Bottomley), is misguided as it seeks to remove the words "nature or" from the description of a relevant publication in clause 1(5). The nature of the publication is a relevant issue that must be considered when ascertaining the responsibilities of printers, distributors or wholesalers and whether they can offer that defence to a defamation action. My hon. Friend mentioned the magazine Scallywag--which I think is now defunct--and
it was in the nature of that publication to libel people. We must put distributors, printers, wholesalers and retailers on notice that they should have regard to the nature of a publication if they seek to rely on that defence. Therefore, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment No. 26. Of course, I am prevented from considering amendments that have not been selected.
I understand the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), about amendments Nos. 41 and 42. However, they would introduce unnecessary fetters on courts when considering precisely what they can take into account in determining whether the defence that is set out in clause 1 applies. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to rely on the new defence that is set out in clause 1, which--having listened carefully to his remarks--I think offers a strong and complete defence to the people with whom he is concerned. However, I cannot accept the amendments. I am sorry, but when I referred to amendments Nos. 41 and 42, I meant amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Madam Speaker:
Is the Minister back on his correct brief?
Mr. Streeter:
Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for keeping me in order.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, as a court must take into account whether a retailer, bookseller or library has stocked a particular publication. Of course, if no such publication has been stocked, that is a complete defence in any action for defamation.
Mr. Corbyn:
A number of bookshops throughout the country stock Searchlight, a respected anti-fascist magazine.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
An excellent magazine.
People who do not like the message contained in Searchlight have selected a number of bookshops, the burden of their threat to any other bookshop being, "If you stock this magazine, you will get the same treatment." It is selective terrorism against radical bookshops, in the knowledge that they have little resources with which to fight a libel case, so many of them have been forced to settle out of court, paying money that they can ill afford to keep these people happy.
Mr. Streeter:
I am concerned to learn that, and I shall be happy to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss that case. I have no time whatever for the bullying tactics that he described. I shall be delighted to receive a delegation from him and to explore more fully what the law can do to protect his constituents.
This has been a useful, albeit brief, debate. I understand the reasons why the amendments have been tabled, but I cannot recommend that the House accept them.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
On the understanding that my hon. Friend will meet the delegation led by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn); if my hon.
I believe that the Bill is defective, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgment of at least one of the points that was raised, and I hope of mine as well. If my hon. Friend is open to meet people, I shall not press the amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Ashby:
I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 1, leave out from 'in' to second 'and' in line 2 and insert
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, after first 'offer', insert
No. 2, in page 3, line 19, at end insert--
No. 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
No. 5, in page 4, leave out lines 33 and 34.
No. 6, in page 4, line 40, after 'defence', insert
Mr. Ashby:
I find it difficult to get up at the moment, as I was gardening on Sunday and now have a bad back.
As the law stands, a publisher who has published a defamation and admits that he has done so can publish a correction and apology in mitigation of damages and pay money into court. That seems to me to be quite sufficient. If that is not accepted by the victim--I stress again that I always use the word "victim" rather than "plaintiff"--they can go before a jury and the jury can assess the damages.
The clause seems to be a means by which a publisher, without a leg to stand on, can avoid damages being assessed by a jury. I find it odd and quite wrong that if a victim is unhappy about an apology that has been offered and therefore proceeds with his case, he can lose all rights to recover damages, even when it is admitted that a serious libel has been published. That is the effect of the clause, and we should understand what we are doing.
Libel actions rarely involve one specific allegation, and more often consist of a number of defamatory statements, all of which can have various defamatory meanings. As the law stands, a publisher can make a qualified offer of amends in respect of one defamatory meaning. Under the clause, a publisher can offer to apologise, make a correction and pay damages over one allegation, but seek to justify the rest of the article, and the victim, who may reject the offer, may end up losing even the damages to which he was entitled.
I have said throughout that this is a publishers' Bill. Not surprisingly, in previous arguments we have heard all about the leader lawyers' point of view. It came out of Lord Justice Neill's inquiry. As I have said in the Chamber before, he sought only the advice and evidence of the leader lawyers. The victims' lawyers did not hear about the matter until a couple of days before the inquiry ended, when they hurriedly summoned and managed to submit some evidence.
The Government swallowed that hook, line and sinker. There was an offer to make amends, which was a disgrace. I have tried to improve the position in the amendments, suggesting that, rather than a correction and apology being published
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Ashby:
That seems to accord with much that has been said in the House. We have always said that we should have some sort of right of reply. Disgraceful defamations are made, and then we see a tiny apology on the back page, an inch high, covering nothing like the spread that was on the first or second page. At the very least, we should be demanding such coverage for the correction.
My amendments also deal with cases involving a qualified offer. As I have said, the current position is one-sided, leaving the poor defendant absolutely open to what may happen to him. He may reject the offer and end up losing even the damages to which he is entitled. Amendment No. 1 deals with that, but makes the proviso:
'an article of the same size and type and of the same prominence as the defamatory article'.
'save and except in the case of a qualified offer'.
'(2A) Where there is a qualified offer in respect of one part of a defamation, a plaintiff accepting a qualified offer to make amends shall be free to pursue an action for defamation in respect of other parts of the defamation for which no offer of amends has been made.'.
'only in so far as it applies to the meaning to which the offer related.'.
"in a manner that is reasonable and practicable",
an article of the same size as the defamatory article should be published.
That, at this day's sitting, the Defamation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.
"save and except in the case of a qualified offer".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deal with clause 3. The other amendments deal with clause 4, which is entitled
"Failure to accept offer to make amends".
If the poor chap has not accepted such an offer, he is done for: he is hammered into the ground, and does not have a leg to stand on. That, of course, is exactly what the newspapers want. The Bill is a charter for newspapers. It has been proposed by publishers who themselves have not
a leg to stand on, so that they can avoid having damages assessed by a jury. That is what clause 4 is about, and that is why I have tabled my amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |