Lords back low-cost libel arbitration

The House of Lords voted last night to set up a low-cost libel arbitration service, along the lines suggested by Lord Justice Leveson.

Labour peer Lord Puttnam introduced the successful amendment to the Defamation Bill, which was passed by 272 votes to 141.

“The bill may deal with some of the perversities of the current libel system, which is largely to be welcomed, and it can be reasonably expected to lead to fewer defamation actions against newspapers,” Lord Puttnam said.

“However, for the citizen who has a case in law that suggests they have been wronged by the press, the bill has absolutely nothing to say about access to justice or the costs of seeking that justice in the courts, all of which is plainly unaffordable except for the very wealthy.

“After everything that we heard at the Leveson inquiry, the problems of access to justice and to remedies are far too important to be left unresolved.

“Fortunately for us, Lord Justice Leveson has already proposed a ready-made and carefully-considered solution.”

Lord Puttnam said the newspapers “know only too well that an arbitration service could save them collectively hundreds of millions of pounds a year in legal costs”.

He went on: “It goes without saying that the arbitration service would not be everything that Leveson recommends, but it is the element of Leveson that cannot happen without the support of parliament.

“The courts and the newspaper industry are unable simply to set up their own. Without statutory authority, the courts would not be able to give preferential treatment to those newspapers that used the low-cost arbitration service.”

Lord Puttnam added that the amendment offered an opportunity to break the “logjam” in the talks between the newspapers and the government and between the three political parties on the Leveson proposals.

Liberal peer Lord Lester, whose private member’s bill paved the way for the defamation bill, argued that the arbitration scheme would breach articles 6 and 10 of the ECHR.

“The arbitrator does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process by an independent court or tribunal established by law. The arbitrator can dispense with hearings in his or her discretion.

“There is no right of appeal to an independent court or tribunal and the process is free for complainants but to be paid for by the press. In my view, such a scheme would be incompatible with articles 6 and 10 of the convention.”

The third reading of the bill in the Lords will take place later this month.