here - United Kingdom Parliament

929 1 DECEMBER 2010
930
always be followers and never be leaders. That is why we
have been so keen to take forward that technology.
The hon. Member for Ogmore suggested that
decentralised energy may be unable to deliver as much
as we hope, and he may be right. However, we are right
to try to look at what can be done locally, although we
are doing it against the backdrop of how much more
should have been done historically. In the end, this all
comes back to the broad portfolio of policies that we
are putting forward—the need to have clarity on national
planning issues, which is exactly what these documents
are about, and the need to have clarity on the market
structure that will exist.
The hon. Gentleman talked almost as if EMR—the
market reform process—was his own idea. Seven months
ago, Labour Members were saying that there did not
need to be a price on carbon, that there should not be
an emissions performance standard, and that we did
not need capacity payments. We are having to reinvent a
market in order to take us forward and give us the
security that we need. This is part of a package. I hope
that he is in no doubt about our determination to
achieve that and to drive it forward. Let me assure my
hon. Friends, and all hon. Members that we totally
understand everything that needs to be done to drive
forward investment in this area. We will take nothing
for granted. Our goal is to make this the most attractive
place in the world in which to invest in new energy
infrastructure. We are determined to do that and we
look for consensus and partnership to take it forward.
This debate has been a constructive and important part
of that process. I hope we can conclude that we have
had a good debate on these issues—
7pm
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Business without Debate
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing
Order No. 118(6)),
OFFICIAL STATISTICS
That the draft Official Statistics Order 2010, which was laid
before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Question agreed to.
Libel Law
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House
do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)
7pm
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): If
the world has a capital of free speech, it is Britain. If it
has a centre of free speech, it is this Chamber, as you
know well, Mr Speaker. Yet in the last few years, Britain
has become a watchword for something else—the use of
our libel law to suppress free speech.
This is not an esoteric philosophical issue. Free speech
is the mother of freedom of thought and freedom of
thought is the mother of many virtues, including integrity,
individualism and creativity. That is why Britain has a
vigorous and successful tradition of high culture and
science, as well as of democracy. As I will demonstrate,
all those virtues of British culture have been suppressed,
to a greater or lesser extent, by our libel law.
As a Parliament, we have failed to defend one of our
nation’s primary virtues—free speech. We have also
failed in the duty to protect the weak and vulnerable
from the rich and powerful. More often than not, it is
the rich and powerful who use the libel laws to intimidate
the less wealthy and the less powerful, as I shall demonstrate.
Perhaps the best demonstration that English libel law
has become a weapon of the rich and powerful is the
extent to which they choose to use the English courts
over any other option and over the courts of any other
country. When Boris Berezovsky sued a Russian TV
company, he did so not in Russia, where the deed
occurred, but in England. Similarly, Roman Abramovich
chose to sue an Italian newspaper not in Rome, but in
London.
In 2004, the Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz,
launched a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, the
American author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is
Financed—and How to Stop It”. The book claimed
that Mahfouz financed al-Qaeda. It was not published
here, but it was available online. Mahfouz brought the
case not in America or Saudi Arabia, but in Britain,
and the court awarded him substantial damages. As a
direct result, New York law was changed to prevent
British judgments applying in the US and American
national law is undergoing the same change.
Those rich men each brought their cases under the
English judicial system, rather than in the appropriate
forum, because English libel law is complex, clumsy,
expensive and draconian. It is 140 times more expensive
to defend a libel case in England than in other European
nations. As a result, it favours the wealthy man who has
the most financial stamina and can afford the most
expensive lawyers. Although libel tourism is not the
most important weakness in English libel law, it is the
starkest symptom of how unfair it can be, compared
with every other jurisdiction in the modern world.
Perhaps the best domestic example of this grotesquely
expensive system is the Naomi Campbell case. A newspaper
wrote about her drug problem. It was sued and lost on
the grounds of breach of confidentiality. Although the
story was true, the legal fees alone cost more than
£1 million.
How did all that come about? English libel law was
largely developed centuries ago by English judges, as an
alternative to duelling to protect the honour of gentlemen.