Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board

Part of Business without Debate – in the House of Commons at 6:30 pm on 16 April 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sadiq Khan Sadiq Khan Shadow Minister (London), Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice 6:30, 16 April 2013

I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress first. We have only an hour in which to debate the amendments because of the way in which the Government programmed the debate.

Sadly, publishers are routinely threatened with libel proceedings by corporations who do not want negative coverage. The Lords amendment would make that more difficult.

In addition, the Lords new clause aligns the law with the so-called Derbyshire principle. This principle rightly prevents public bodies from bringing defamation actions, and the amendment will mean that private companies delivering public functions are similarly restricted. In the original case of Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers in 1993, Lord Keith of Kinkel’s judgment makes clear the importance of “uninhibited public criticism” of democratically elected and public bodies. The principle is very important, because it means that local authorities—or, indeed, any public authority or organ of central or local government—should be open to uninhibited public criticism and therefore do not have the right to make a claim for defamation for damages.