§ 1. A fair and accurate sport of any proceedings in public of the legislature of any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain.
§ 6.35 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to Paragraph 1:
or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the last question which I think will arise to-day. I put it forward, after some consideration, in the hope that your Lordships may think it right to make this small change. I do not think I would recommend it to your Lordships' House if we had made no changes in the Bill, but there is already one small change made and the question is whether this is not a desirable change. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has had to leave, authorises me to say that he entirely agrees with this Amendment. It is in the Schedule at the top of page 7. The Report of Lord Porter's Committee, at page 26, paragraph 110 (A) (a) (ii), recommended that there should be qualified privilege for a "fair and accurate" report of proceedings at public of the Legislature of any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside Britain or, it added, of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country. As the Bill was introduced in another place, it did cover the report of proceedings in foreign
375
Legislatures as well as reports of proceedings in Legislatures in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions.
§ That provision, that there should be the defence of qualified privilege for a report of the proceedings in public of the Legislatures of foreign countries, was cut out in the course of the discussions in another place. I have a feeling that it was cut out, to some extent, under a misapprehension of its purpose. What I, at least, have in mind, and I think many others, is this. We do not seek to confer this qualified privilege upon a newspaper for the purpose of protecting the newspaper. It has nothing to do with protecting newspaper proprietors. The point is: is it not greatly in the public interest that the people of this country should be informed, by a fair and accurate report, of what has taken place in foreign Legislatures? Take, for instance, the Congress of the United States. Is it really in the interests that we are all trying to serve, of trying to reconcile the right of free information and discussion with the necessity of protecting people who are defamed, that we should put on the Statute Book something which, in effect, says to a British newspaper: "Now, you had better not report that. It is a fair and accurate report enough of what happened in this foreign Legislature. There is no difficulty there but, mind you, the foreign Legislature in this fair and accurate report might reflect upon 'A.B.', who will have the law on you if you dare to report that." It is not that I want to protect the newspaper. It is, as it seems to me, essential in a free country like ours that we should have the free opportunity of knowing what, in fact, has been said and done in foreign Legislatures.
§ I have taken the case of the Congress of the United States, but the same thing applies equally, of course, to any Soviet Parliament. I quite understand that it may be that a fair and accurate report will show that they have said something most objectionable about somebody, and I quite understand that somebody may say that it is not true. But the question is, which is the better? Should we really know what is happening in these foreign Legislatures or would it be wiser for us to say: "No, we must be careful to see that no one who might be a plaintiff here shall ever have any reflection cast on his reputation, even by a fair 376 and accurate report of what is being said in a foreign Legislature. Therefore we will not give even qualified privilege to the most careful newspaper that contains a most accurate report." That is the real issue. I say, with respect to those who took part in the discussion in another place, that I do not think that that aspect of the matter was sufficiently before them. I think that some of them thought that this Amendment was going to confer some advantage on newspaper proprietors. That is not the case at all. If we do not do this, then, obviously, newspapers will hesitate before they give fair and accurate reports of proceedings in these foreign Legislatures. And that is the very thing which we ought to have.
§ Therefore, it seems to me, on balance, that this is an Amendment which we should do well to make. It is based on the recommendation of the Porter Committee. It is true that there is not a similar proposal about the decisions of foreign courts. But I think there is a distinct difference. It is important, on public grounds, for us to know what is going on in the Legislatures of foreign countries. It might be important in the case of some courts, but it is not, manifestly, so important to know exactly what goes on in every foreign court, especially when it is reflected that some foreign courts are not always models of judicial procedure. I have explained the purpose of this Amendment and I hope that it may commend itself to the Committee. I shall be very sorry if it in any way arouses any difference of opinion between this House and the other. But I think we ought to submit this to the other place, with our suggestion that it would be a pity to omit this clause, and that it is not in the interest of the newspapers but in the general interest of citizens that we should, by this means, have the best opportunity of knowing what is going on in the Legislatures of the world. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
§ 6.43 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINThis appears to be the only case where there is conflict between this House and another place. I think it is right that if this is going back it should go back with the agreement of 377 the whole Committee. I should, therefore, like to express certainly my own view, and, I believe, the views of those with me, that this is not only an acceptable Amendment but a good one. I will venture to disagree with the noble and learned Viscount only on one small point. I read the Report of the proceedings in another place, as he did, and I formed the impression that they did understand the significance of this point but that they disagreed because they believed that in certain cases some Legislatures, which are very different from our own, went out of their way to be defamatory. But that is a very small point. I think this is a good Amendment, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount. It might possibly strengthen our hands if it were felt that this Amendment had been carried here by general agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps I may add, in order to enforce what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that the Amendment has the approval of myself—so far as that is relevant—representing Her Majesty's Government.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country").—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.
378§ FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
§ CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
§ SCOTTISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S BILL