My Lords, in the House of Commons, Helen Goodman sought to amend this Bill to allow certain categories of close relatives to bring defamation actions in respect of statements made about a deceased person up to a year after that person’s death. That amendment is in the same area—in principle if not in effect—as that of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, today. She drew substantially on the Watson case and gave a compelling argument that this set of circumstances was crying out for redress. I do not intend to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said today, but the Watson case was one of three examples she used, and it is a particularly shocking case.
The family suffered greatly, losing two children as the result of a series of incidents, and then on the day of the funeral of their son, who undoubtedly killed himself because of the way in which his sister’s reputation was trashed, the allegations were repeated in an attempt to try to justify them. We sought to divide the Committee in the House of Commons on this issue—not, as my honourable friend Rob Flello explained, because we thought that the Government’s position in resisting the amendment could be criticised, but because of these shocking circumstances and other cases like it. Unfortunately there are far too many cases that are crying out for resolution and some remedy in the form of a response by government and politicians which recognises that there is a need at least to try to protect the reputation a family and their daughter in these dreadful circumstances.
5 pm
I accept all the difficulties that would have to be addressed if we sought to amend the law in this way; I suspect that the noble Lord who has moved this amendment fully understands them as well and does
not think that they can be resolved easily. However, he has done not just the Watson family but many people who find themselves in this situation a great service by keeping the issue alive. We therefore have an obligation to find a way, if that is at all possible, of addressing the hurt and grievance felt by these people. That may be in the context of the privacy law, to which your Lordships’ House will no doubt turn its attention, or in some other area of the law. This behaviour leaves people feeling devastated and hurt to the core, so there must be some possibility of redress. Reluctantly, I have to accept that changing the law on defamation will not provide that opportunity, but I shall look with interest at what the Scottish Parliament comes up with once it has considered the issue in detail. I have to say that many very learned and well informed voices down here told the Scottish Parliament that restricting smoking in public places could not be achieved effectively, but the Scots did it first, and we have all followed. That has had a marked effect on public health, and perhaps Scotland will lead us again.