I thank my noble friend but encourage him to edge slightly closer to answering my question. He said a very interesting thing: that we are consulting with stakeholders and, indeed, have extended the time for consultation. That actually makes my point. The stakeholders are on one side of the argument, and the individual whose reputation is at stake is on the other side of the argument. The consultation is not even balanced. That causes, I think, concern to a number of noble Lords in this Committee. It certainly does to me, and I would like to know what constitutes balance in the mind of the Government. Incidentally, I will just throw in that we are going to have plenty of opportunity shortly to debate this Government’s theological position, and perhaps my noble friend would take a little advice: I would not go there if I was him.
Defamation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Mawhinney
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 January 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Defamation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
742 c196GC 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-03-26 19:25:31 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011560000023
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011560000023
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011560000023