News: House of Lords adds “Leveson” amendments to Defamation Bill, Government defeated by a substantial majority

5 02 2013

PuttnamAfter more than 2 hours of debate, the House of Lords today voted to accept Lord Puttnam’s amendments to the Defamation Bill to insert provisions for a statutory “Recognition Commission” into the Defamation Bill.  The Government was defeated by the surprisingly wider margin of 272 votes to 141.

The amendments – in the names of Lord Puttnam, former Conservative Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay, former Speaker Baroness Boothroyd and former Attorney-General Baroness Scotland – were supported by the Labour Party and a wide range of peers from all sides of the House.  Conservative peer Lord Fowler said that the amendment was “good for the press” and above all “good for the public”.

In reply to the debate the Minister, Lord McNally, indicated that the Government’s long-awaited Royal Charter would be published next week but gave no firm commitments on the implementation of the Leveson recommendations on press regulation.

The amendments have inserted the following new provisions into the Defamation Bill:

  • A provision to established a “Defamation Recognition Commission” – this would be set up by the Lord Chief Justice and its role would be to “recognise” an Independent Regulatory Board (that is, a voluntary self-regulatory body) providing an “arbitration service” for defamation and related civil claims (a “Specialist Arbitration Service”).
  • Provisions to the effect that a court should take into account when awarding costs or damages and exemplary damages whether the parties have refused to use the arbitration service.
  • A schedule providing for a “Specialist Arbitration Service” which is free for complainants to use.

This means that, unless the Defamation Bill is amended at the Third Reading in the House of Lords – or when the Bill returns to the Commons – there will be a form of statutory implementation of the Leveson Report.

The Government may have considerable difficulties in removing this amendment – as there is a clear “pro-Leveson” majority in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons.  As a result, it may be that the Government – as it has already threatened to do – will withdraw the Defamation Bill entirely.

In proposing this amendment Lord Puttnam intended to

“break the logjam that would appear to have afflicted both the talks between the newspapers and the Government and the talks between the three main political parties themselves”.

He has certainly provided an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of feeling among members of the House of Lords.  The vote shows a very strong desire to move forward quickly with Leveson implementation. It remains to be seen whether the Government will be galvanised into action.



5 responses

5 02 2013
Labour luvvie leads sneak attack on press freedom in the House of Lords – Telegraph Blogs

[…] amendments, sponsored by the Labour peer and Oscar-winning film producer Lord Puttman, have inserted three new provisions into the Defamation Bill. The most significant of these empowers the former Lord Chief Justice to set up a "recognition […]

11 02 2013
Law and Media Round Up – 11 February 2013 « Inforrm's Blog

[…] News: House of Lords adds “Leveson” amendments to Defamation Bill, Government defeated by a subs… […]

12 02 2013
Royal Charter representing the press NOT the public interest. - Media Reform

[…] the background of the debate on the Charter, lies last  Tuesday’s amendment to the Defamation Bill, tabled by Lord Puttnam, former Conservative Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay, former Speaker Baroness […]

15 02 2013
News: Defamation Bill as amended by the House of Lords – where are we now? « Inforrm's Blog

[…] Leveson clause” – but the amendment had strong cross party and cross bench support (see our post here) and is a clear expression of frustration at the Government’s failure to take action on the […]

26 04 2013
News: Defamation Act 2013 receives Royal Assent | Inforrm's Blog

[…] Professor Alastair Mullis and Dr Andrew Scott (see their posts here and here on Inforrm). On 5 February 2013, a group of backbenchers put down controversial “Leveson amendments” to the Bill. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: