FREE SPEECH COMMISSION (Hansard, 7 May 1969)

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest. I am not sure whether in seeking to introduce a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest I am required to declare an interest, but I gladly do so. I am the managing director of Tribune, a newspaper for which all hon. Members place their regular orders with their newsagents.

In another sense, too, I should declare an interest, in that I am responding to an appeal made by a writer in the New Statesman. I quote what was written in the issue of 7th March by Mr. Anthony Howard. I think that he set out the 469 position very clearly, and that what he said summarises the incentive behind my Bill. He wrote: Increasingly of late libel actions have tended to be disposed of by undertakings being given that the complainant will not be mentioned again or at least criticised in a particular context. We have rules against contracts that are in restraint of trade. Why does no one ever worry about arrangements that are clearly in restraint of free discussion? That is the principle about which I am concerned, and I can perhaps illustrate the practice which appears to be spreading by applying what has occurred to some hypothetical instances. If the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, were to make a settlement with a newspaper insisting that in future that newspaper should neither directly nor indirectly reflect on the competence or the integrity of the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, as it might be, in future publications, I think that everyone would say that that was an extraordinary demand. Indeed, the Prime Minister' has only to indicate to one of his minions that he wants a script from the B.B.C. to be told that he is acting like Torquemada.

But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Derek Marks, the editor of the Daily Express, has required from the newspaper Private Eye in the recent settlement of a libel action. He has required that there shall be no reflection directly or indirectly in future on his editorial competence or integrity.

To take another example, if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has a special knowledge of newspaper matters, were to insist in a settlement of a libel action that in future the newspapers concerned should never refer to him in any context whatsoever unless they had prior approval from him in writing, I think that we would regard that as an extraordinary demand, and one that it would be most uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman.

But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Nigel Lawson, the editor of the Spectator, has insisted upon in the settlement of a libel action with Private Eye. Or if I were to insist that, as part of the settlement of a libel action, in future nothing defamatory or malicious were to be printed about me either, say, in the Daily Mirror or in the New Statesman, in my 470 opinion that would be a most improper demand for me to make.

But it is the case that Mr. Paul Johnson, the editor of the New Statesman, in a libel settlement with Private Eye, has insisted that nothing defamatory or malicious shall be printed about him in that newspaper in future. Nobody should say that that is all right, because, in fact, in the law courts on a numbeh of occasions defamatory statements have been shown to be justified or fair comment in the public interest. Therefore, to insist in advance that such a condition should be accepted is, in my opinion, a restriction on the proper area of free debate.

In the case of the New Statesman, the original demand of the editor to his fellow editor of Private Eye—if I may describe him in that comradely manner—was that there should be no mention whatsoever in any context whatsoever of the editor of the New Statesman or of the New Statesman itself.

I am not at all concerned here with the libels or the alleged libels which may have led to these actions or to these proposed actions in the courts. That has nothing to do with the matter. What I am concerned about solely in this proposed Commission is attempts being made—whether made by newspaper editors or by politicians—to inhibit or prevent future criticism. That seems to me to raise an entirely different principle.

Since I mentioned this matter elsewhere some days ago, and since my statements there have been fully upheld in a letter to The Times, which has not been contraverted in any way by the editors concerned, I have also had the information from a most eminent journalist on the other side of the Atlantic that in the United States, where there is a written constitution which lays down rules about free discussion and free debate, such a settlement of a libel action would be forbidden. It would be considered to be contrary to the public interest there, and in my belief it is contrary to the public interest here.

One of the difficulties about the situation is that nobody knows how extensive this practice may be. It is only by accident that some of the settlements have come to light. Some may have been made in the courts, in which case they have been published, but many may have been 471 settled before they ever reached the courts, and for all we know there may be a large number of settlements of this character which have been demanded from newspapers and which are preventing free discussion and inhibiting free debate, which I believe should prevail.

I therefore ask leave for a Commission to be established to discover how prevalent this system is and to make recommendations to ensure that the abuse shall not continue. On a number of occasions in the House I have made a defence of some of the activities of Fleet Street. It has not always had an entirely popular appeal here.

In Fleet Street we are inclined to extol John Wilkes and all his glories, and certainly he played a great part in establishing freedom in this country by challenging the privileges and presumptions of the House of Commons. Indeed, John Wilkes was himself a splendid "yellow" journalist who ran a newspaper which would make Private Eye look like a parish magazine. But if John Wilkes, as well as engaging in that sort of trade, had insisted for himself on the kind of protection which these three editors have claimed, he would have made himself the laughing stock of London.

I conclude in these terms. Newspaper editors and proprietors demand, quite rightly in the name of freedom, that politicians should have pretty thick skins. But if anybody raises a finger against them—or applies a foot to them—their cheeks can become as delicate as damask. We should have a fairer system all round. There should be free speech for all within laws of libel governing the whole situation, but with no secret compacts preventing free debate. I submit that this Commission should be established by the House of Commons.