7 Jan 2011 | News and features
Index on Censorship celebrates Nick Clegg’s commitment to overhaul England’s much-criticised libel laws
The Libel Reform Campaign today welcomes Nick Clegg’s pledge to reform defamation laws that have made England an international “laughing stock”.
In a speech this morning at the Institute of Government in London, the deputy prime minister will reveal that the government will address all the issues raised by the Libel Reform Campaign in its report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale. A draft defamation bill to be published in the spring will clarify the existing defences of fair comment and justification. It will protect scientists, academics and journalists speaking out in the public interest with a new statutory defence.
Index on Censorship Chief Executive John Kampfner commented:
This is welcome news for the libel reform campaign. The deputy prime minister has not only acknowledged the chilling effect of our defamation laws, but taken our demands for reform fully on board. We’re delighted that that in tone and detail the draft bill will go a long way to tackling the chill on free speech emanating from English courts.
Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN said:
We warmly welcome the deputy prime minister’s pledge to reform our rusting libel laws. PEN members have been calling for reform for over sixty years, so we are delighted that the government is making this manifesto commitment a priority. If the government follows through on Mr Clegg’s encouraging promises, the law will achieve a much more sensible balance between free expression and reputation. MPs must now ensure that the draft Bill lives up to these commitments, and that the measures are not watered down to please the rich libel tourists who currently abuse our system.
Tracey Brown of Sense About Science said:
The current libel laws are squashing free debate and expression about science, medicine, local government, corruption, biography, and consumer safety. It is squashing many more people now that we have internet publishing and individual blogs taking on these subjects. We think the government understands that now, but we know that there are many who would like to keep this system for silencing or bankrupting critics, so the deputy prime minister’s commitment to change is very important.
12 May 2010 | Uncategorized
Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Sunny Hundal’s got a bit of a scoop, with the contents of a document claimed to be the basis of the negotiations that formed the UK’s new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. Under the heading civil liberties, we find the following:
10. Civil liberties
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
Further regulation of CCTV.
Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
The libel point would seem to echo what now-Attorney General Dominic Grieve told Index on Censorship in April:
“The Conservative party is committed, if elected, to undertaking a fundamental review of the libel laws with a view to enacting legislation to reform them. This reform could best be done by means of a separate Libel Bill and this is the preferred approach for us.”
This is a good start, but we need reform, not just review.
3 May 2010 | Uncategorized
In the run-up to the general election, the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war is being kept out of the public eye, with no new documents published during the campaign in order to keep out of party politics. But the result of the election could well impact on the inquiry. Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have both promised to rethink the way it operates if they are in government after Thursday’s poll.
The Liberal Democrats have said they would introduce a fast-track freedom of information procedure and ensure the publication of key documents that the inquiry has been prevented from publishing. The Tories have repeated a threat to “revisit” the terms of the inquiry.
Since Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last June, he has come under fire from opposition parties for its lack of transparency. The prime minister initially said the inquiry that would sit in secret, but had to backtrack after fierce criticism from MPs on all sides and former mandarins, including former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, who led a 2004 inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run up to war.
In November, as public hearings began, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg ambushed Brown in the Commons after it became clear that a Cabinet Office protocol would severely limit the inquiry’s ability to publish and publicly discuss the documents that, according to chairman Sir John Chilcot, form the “great bulk” of its evidence.
Chilcot and other committee members have since expressed their frustration during hearings at the restrictions. In January, Tories and Liberal Democrats called for the “gag” on the inquiry to be lifted after former attorney general Lord Goldsmith said while giving evidence that he did not agree with the government’s decision to prevent publication of key papers.
The inquiry has not published any new documents since early February. I asked its spokesman whether this was because none had been cleared by the government or because the inquiry had chosen not to publish any during the run-up to the election. He referred me to Chilcot’s closing statement [pdf] on 8 March that “The Iraq Inquiry intends to remain out of the public eye over the period of the election.” The implication of this is that if the inquiry has documents that it is entitled to publish it has chosen to deny voters knowledge of their contents.
But a new Liberal Democrat or Tory government or coalition could see significant changes to the way the inquiry operates. Liberal Democrat shadow foreign secretary Ed Davey told me: “Labour has suffocated the Iraq Inquiry with rules and red-tape, effectively preventing publication of key documents. Liberal Democrats will review the protocol and appoint an arbitrator between the Cabinet Office and the Iraq Inquiry to rule on the publication of documents. This will act as a fast-track freedom of information procedure and ensure transparent and swift publication of documents.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “We have always said that a Conservative government will reserve the right to revisit the terms of the Inquiry. At the same time we have accepted that the Inquiry needs to hold some of its sessions and proceedings in confidence.”
The Labour party did not take up my invitation to comment but neither Labour nor ministers have given any indication that they plan to loosen the existing restrictions on the inquiry.
22 Apr 2010 | News and features, United Kingdom
The ballots are in, they’ve been badly counted and the winner of last night’s completely unscientific poll is Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats science spokesman*
1. Who do you think defended freedom of speech the best?
Michael Wills — Labour 2
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 55
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 12
2. Whose proposed reforms of our libel laws were you most favourable to?
Michael Wills —- Labour 2
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 58
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 9
3. Whose arguments did you find the most convincing?
Michael Wills —- Labour 3
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 52
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 15
***This is in no way an endorsement of any political party by Index on Censorship
