LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 29 October 1952)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, the particular clause in the Defamation Bill, as we returned it to the Commons, which is now objected to in another place is the clause which was originally contained in the Bill and was based on the Porter Report, to the effect that a newspaper which, without malice, published a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of a foreign Legislature should be entitled to the defence of qualified privilege. There were arguments in favour of, and some objections to, that course. When we returned the Bill to the Commons we reinserted this provision which was, as I have said, recommended by the Committee on defamation over which my noble and learned friend Lord Porter presided. In another place, objection was taken to this provision and it has been expunged. We are now to consider whether we shall accept that position and agree to it, thereby getting the Defamation Bill on to the Statute Book as a whole, or whether the controversy on this clause, which is not very important, should be persisted in. I am going to propose that we do not insist on the Amendment which this House inserted and with which the Commons have disagreed.

I must, in frankness, say that I regret the omission from the Statute of this clause, and I think other noble Lords regret it, too. When, on July 28, we inserted into the Bill a clause to the effect that a fair and accurate report of any proceedings in public of the Legislature of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country should be protected by privilege. I was authorised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to say that, though he had to be absent from the House, he entirely agreed with the Amendment. At the end of a short 1088 discussion the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.178, Col. 376): I think it is right that if this is going back it should go back with the agreement of 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. None the less, my Lords, I feel that at this period of the Session it would be a pity to instigate a controversy on what is a very minor point, and I therefore beg to move that your Lordships' House do not insist upon the Amendment which we made in the Bill and to which the Commons have disagreed.

§ EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I rise with somewhat mixed feelings here, because I have never attempted to conceal the fact that I think this is a very disappointing Bill, and to my mind there would be some attraction in losing it, because, as things are, I know quite well what will happen. When there is passed a Bill dealing with the law of libel, it means that for the next thirty years or so everybody will be saying that the topic has been dealt with, and that it cannot be dealt with again. And as I think this is a disappointing Bill, I am a little sorry that it is going to appear on the Statute Book. On the other hand, it is a question of compromise, and perhaps it is better than nothing. Therefore, on the whole, I think I should be sorry to lose this Bill. However, I do not feel strongly about it.

On this Amendment, I may say that feel that this House was clearly right. It is, of course, a question of the balance of convenience. Long ago, we in this country established that the public convenience was best suited by there being complete freedom to report the proceedings of our own Parliament, even though proceedings in Parliament might involve a slur on some individual. I believe that enshrined in that principle is something which is of the utmost importance to democracy. Disputes about Hansard, and the rest of it, are all a matter of history. No one today doubts that the public advantage is best suited by allowing Parliamentary proceedings to be 1089 reported by the newspapers, even though that may involve some slur upon an individual. We are not going to be parochially minded here. We have got to consider what goes on abroad. The various nations of the world have become very close to each other, and I say, quite frankly, that the old principle which we have set, so far as our own Legislature is concerned, should be extended to the Legislatures of foreign countries. I think it should be permissible for the newspapers of this country to report, for instance, what goes on in Congress in the United States, or what goes on in the French Parliament. There may be a risk, as of course there may in our own Parliament, of some injustice to an individual, but to my mind it is an advantage for the public to know what is going on in foreign countries and to know what their Legislatures are talking about That far outweighs the possible risk, which I agree is there, of injustice to an individual.

Let me take this illustration. Suppose that Dr. Mossadeq and the Majlis should be discussing the efforts which Mr. Eden has recently been making to solve the Persian oil difficulty. I do not know what would be said there by Dr. Mossadeq, and I should not like to hazard a guess. But suppose that he said, as he might well say, that the offer was wholly improper and unreasonable, that Mr. Eden was not honest, or that he must have been in his cups when he made it, or that Mr. Eden was obviously anticipating a rake-off from somewhere, or that Dr. Mossadeq made any other equally ridiculous statement. What of it? Is it not much better that the people in this country should know the grounds which Dr. Mossadeq gave for refusing our offer, because, in the case I have given, everyone would know that the statement about Mr. Eden was so ridiculous that no one would take any notice of it. On balance, it seems to me desirable that we should be able to learn frankly about what goes on in the world we are living in, and that newspapers should be entitled to tell us, without fear of libel actions, what goes on in foreign Legislatures. That was the recommendation of the Porter Committee, and that recommendation we inserted in the Bill, following out the advice of the Porter Committee. And it is that recommendation that is now going. From 1090 what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, I believe that in this matter, at any rate, I am being consistent—a virtue which I do not always demonstrate—because I am saying now what I said on the last occasion, through him. And I am still unrepentant. I still think that we were absolutely right, and I still think that what we did was much better than what the Commons have done.

Now I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor this question—having myself had to pronounce on these matters for so many years, it is pleasant now to be able to turn to him and to get an authoritative pronouncement. Suppose that someone in the Parliament of a foreign country—the Congress of the United States or the Majlis of Persia, whatever you will—makes some statement which might be considered as strongly derogatory of somebody over here. If a newspaper reports, with complete accuracy and fairness, what has been said in that foreign Legislature, and if what has been said in that foreign Legislature does cast some slur upon someone in this country, would that someone be entitled to bring an action in our courts to recover damages? Or would the fact that it was a perfectly fair and accurate report of what was said in a foreign Legislature give the newspaper so reporting a defence? That is a problem which, as a mere Common Law lawyer, I have the greatest pleasure in handing over to my Chancery brother who can, in his position, authoritatively lay down the law and tell me what the position is. Whatever his answer may be, I feel, with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that though I deeply regret this decision of the Commons, which I think is a bad one, I do not think we ought to oppose it, and that, after the Lord Chancellor has answered my question, we must accept it as gracefully as we can.