Lord McNally writes… Liberal Democrats can be proud of the Defamation Bill

Yesterday I published a new government amendment to the Defamation Bill which will strengthen the “serious harm” test already in the bill to make it more difficult for corporations to sue for libel. This new amendment makes it clear that a body trading for profit will only satisfy the serious harm test if it is able to show that the statement complained of has caused or is likely to case the body serious financial loss. This is almost identical to the original clause Anthony Lester proposed in his private members bill. This will make it clear that bodies trading for profit must have suffered, or be likely to suffer, serious financial loss in order to be able to establish a claim. This is a very significant change that Liberal Democrats have been able to achieve.

As the bill goes through its final stages in Parliament, it is worth remembering how this bill came about and the journey we’ve been on as a party to achieve the important reforms to the laws of libel encapsulated in this bill.

When the Libel Reform Campaign was launched in 2009, only the Liberal Democrats backed change. Now the cause has cross-party support. It was Liberal Democrats who ensured that there was a commitment in the Coalition Agreement to review the law of libel to protect free speech. When Anthony Lester introduced his Private Members Bill on defamation in the summer of 2010, I committed to taking his bill away and working to ensure that it returned as a government bill. Following discusisons within the MoJ with my coalition colleagues, I brought forward a government consultation and draft bill in 2011. The bill was then announced in the Queen’s speech last May.

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of our democracy. In an open society, people should be at liberty to debate a subject without fear or favour, whether the matter is political, scientific, academic, religious, or anything else. However freedom of speech does not mean that people should be able to ride roughshod over the reputation of others without regard to the facts. Careers and indeed lives can be destroyed by false allegations that are incapable of being properly answered.

The issue for our defamation laws is ultimately one of striking the right balance between the protection of freedom of expression on the one hand, and protection of reputation on the other.

It is this balance that I have been working hard to achieve throughout the last two years, since Anthony introduced his Private Members Bill. It is a difficult balance to achieve, and I have been careful throughout this process not to tip it too much in one direction or the other. I have worked closely with organisations on both sides of the debate throughout this process, and I have listened carefully to the views of MPs and Peers as the bill has been debated in Parliament.

For example, during the Lords stages of the bill I agreed with suggestions by Anthony Lester and the Opposition to re-word the public interest defence in Clause 4; I agreed to a change to the defence for website operators to be defeated if the operator acts “with malice”; and I confirmed for the avoidance of doubt that peer-related articles in scientific and academic journals that are published only in electronic form are protected in the same way as they would be in print form.

All of this has been the product of a process of discussion and bargaining within Government with my Conservative colleagues. On this bill as on others, we got some of the things that we wanted and the Conservatives got some of the things that they wanted. In the negotiations which preceded the publication of the draft Defamation bill and the substantive Bill, we were unable to persuade the Conservatives to sign up to a change in the law for corporations. However I was confident that other changes we were making in the bill would make it harder for corporate or wealthy individual claimants to intimidate defendants with limited resources, without removing their ability to seek redress where their reputation is genuinely damaged. The new test of serious harm, for example, provides an effective deterrent to trivial and vexation claims – regardless of who the claimant is. And it is important to bear in mind the fact that corporations are already unable to claim damages for certain types of harm.

In addition, the Civil Justice Council is currently looking at how costs protection measures might work in defamation cases to help address concerns relating to cases involving an inequality of arms. This will ensure that claimants and defendants of limited means are not deterred from bringing or defending defamation claims where the other party is a corporation, newspaper or individual with substantially greater resources.

There have been further discussions in the last week, and so I have now tabled the new government amendment relating to serious financial harm for corporations. “Serious” financial loss is a very strong test, and as it is explicitly linked to the serious harm test, this raises the bar for bringing a claim in any defamation action.

Liberal Democrats have every reason to be proud of the Defamation Bill. What started as a debate at Party Conference became a manifesto commitment. That commitment became a draft Bill, which itself went through every stage of parliamentary scrutiny. As we reach the end of the process there has been need to compromise. As Nick Clegg so often reminds the Party, we do not have the votes in either House to impose our will. No-one suggests, however, that the Defamation Bill is anything other than a major step forward in protecting freedom of expression in this country and a significant protection against intimidation by the rich and the powerful. It will give protections to our academic community and deter libel tourism. Not every libel reform campaigner will have got everything they wanted; but those who value free speech can be satisfied with a job well done.

* Tom McNally is Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and a Minister of State for Justice

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • While I am pleased that reform is finally being achieved in this area, let us not try to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes; “has caused or is likely to cause”as a clause in law is vastly different to the clause proposed by Lord Lester. Sure, it is just 5 little extra words, but in a court of Law, one word is enough. This clause stills leaves us with a tiny proportion of doubt and ambiguity; Lord McNutly will know better than I that these two things can be very easily exploited in a court of Law.

    Here we have gifted corporations and their Lawyers with a cravat that they do not need to prove what is, just what could be, and if you are facing millions of pounds of crippling debt, ‘could be’ may just be enough to strangle freedom of speech once more.

    Yes, this is a vast improvement on our old, completely defunct, defamation laws, but alas, we should not kid ourselves, once again the compromise of coalition has allowed the vested interests of Tory sycophants to undermine truth and justice.

  • Melanie Harvey 23rd Apr '13 - 10:50am

    ” However I was confident that other changes we were making in the bill would make it harder for corporate or wealthy individual claimants to intimidate defendants with limited resources, without removing their ability to seek redress where their reputation is genuinely damaged.”… Reverse the C and D..Can we know seek to improve this type of situation in respects employers.. particularly in regards insurance concerning PI in the work place, especially given, legal representation is either expensive, legal aid non existent or the union supposed to provide such has clear conflict of interest and refuses you your right !!!!
    Summary Judgements need looking at…

  • Liberal Al:

    This is the clause in Lord Lesters Bill:
    “A body corporate which seeks to pursue an action for defamation must show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the body corporate.”

    And this is the government amendment Lord McNally is referring to:
    “The court must strike out an application under subsection (2) unless the body corporate can show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the claimant.”

    The words you take issue with are in both clauses.

  • And you need a “future looking” element for when this is to be used as the basis of an injunction to prevent publication

  • @Hywel: Thanks. 🙂

  • Also, sorry to Lord McNally. You and all those who have worked on this Bill have clearly done a fantastic job.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Brandon Masih
    On the subject of ensuring that other people aren’t subject to breathing tobacco smoke… this is why we rightly have regulations on smoking areas and end of ...
  • Jenny barnes
    Well, if we're talking about the externalities of smoking, the £10 billion tax revenue leaves £8 billion to spend on other nice things after the NHS take thei...
  • Nonconformistradical
    I second expats. This is a case where exercising personal freedom clashes directly with other peoples’ right to breathe air free from tobacco smoke...
  • expats
    I might agree with you if smoking only affected the smoker, but it doesn't..Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS £2.5 billion every year, equivalent to 2% of t...
  • Roger Lake
    @ Peter Davies above Well said, Peter! Indeed, not either/or, but both....