My Lords, I rise to point out a bit of a car crash in Amendment 20 and Clause 10 in the light of Amendment 17, in which the Government, to the approbation of the House, introduced the issue of malice. If the operator of a website was actuated by malice, it will deprive him of his defence. That is no longer consistent with the provisions in Clause 10(1), because in effect it says that you cannot sue,
“unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher”.
So far this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has discussed Clause 10 and his Amendment 20 exclusively in terms of booksellers, but it applies equally to website operators. It will completely undo the introduction of the issue of malice into Clause 5 if Clause 10 allows an operator to avoid being sued for having allowed something to be posted with malice on the part of the operator if, in the language of Clause 10(1), it is reasonably practicable to sue the author, editor or publisher. I apologise for not having picked this up earlier, but we need to do something about it. It also infects Amendment 20, where the same issue prevails.
I have a second issue. I am sorry to have to object to this amendment, but in proposed paragraph (c) in Amendment 20, there is a “not” in the first line that should not be there. As worded, it would mean that a court would not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint unless, among other things, it was satisfied that the bookseller,
“did not know that the statement was defamatory”,
et cetera. The point surely must be that the bookseller did know that the statement was defamatory. I do not quite know what we do at this time of night on Report, but if I am correct, and I have a horrible feeling that I am, it undermines both the amendment and the present state of Clause 10.