All the major political parties pledged to reform the laws of libel in the run up to this year's general election. Libel laws in England and Wales are widely seen as being very favourable to people suing for libel to protect their reputations.
"The Government recognises the impact that the current law may be having on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to academic and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism and will be looking at options for addressing concerns around 'libel tourism'," said a Ministry of Justice statement.
Libel tourism is the practice of suing for libel in a country favourable to your case regardless of where you or your opponent lives. The UK has been accused of being a valued destination for libel tourists because of its strict laws since publication online gave litigants opportunities to argue that their reputation has been damaged wherever an article could be read.
Justice Minister Lord McNally said that the Government will begin work on a new Defamation Bill that he said he hoped would solve the widely-recognised problems with current UK law.
"Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. We need investigative journalism and scientific research to be able to flourish without the fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and libel cases being brought against them," he said.
A private member's bill on libel proposed by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester is making its way through the House of Lords but has little chance of being given enough parliamentary time to succeed without Government support.
Lord McNally said that though the Government would introduce its own Bill rather than support Lord Lester's, he would take its proposals into account.
"The debate today in the House of Lords and Lord Lester's Private Members Bill has greatly assisted our thinking on the matter. We will now move ahead with a draft Government Bill with all due urgency," he said.
"The unsatisfactory state of English defamation law is notorious and well recognised both here and abroad," said Lord Lester in the debate in the House of Lords. "It suffers from the twin vices of legal uncertainty and over-breadth. It has failed to adapt to the changed world of communication by means of the internet and worldwide web."
"The litigation it engenders is costly and often protracted, and it has a severe chilling effect on the freedom of expression not only of powerful newspapers and broadcasters, but of regional newspapers, NGOs and individual public critics. That chilling effect, well recognised by our most senior courts, encourages self-censorship and impairs the communication of public information about matters of legitimate public interest and concern," he said.
Lord McNally told the House of Lords, though, that the Government would not adopt Lord Lester's bill.
"I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham … that the Government should simply adopt the Bill," he said. "My hope is that having received his Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will give me and my advisers time to digest what has been said today. We will then embark on a wide range of consultations over the summer to take stock."
"When the House returns in the autumn, we will have made considerable progress on a draft government Bill, which we hope to publish early in the new year and make ready for pre-legislative scrutiny. As I say, this is not a vague promise of better things to come, but a firm commitment to action on this matter," he said.
"In reviewing the law, we want to focus on ensuring that freedom of speech and academic debate are protected and that a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation," said Lord McNally. "We want to ensure that the right balance is achieved so that people who have been defamed are able to take action to protect their reputation where appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded."
"We believe that this will help to ensure that responsible journalism and academic and scientific debate are able to flourish, and that investigative journalism and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations are not unjustifiably hampered by actual or threatened libel proceedings," he said.
