Why Belfast must never become ''a town called sue''

In all my years of broadcast journalism, I was involved in very few cases of defamation, but those that did emerge, all involved the political classes. Indeed, they all involved the DUP in one way or another: two were brought by elected representatives; the third by those offended by comments made by one of their most senior members.

So, should politicians declare an interest when commentating on the laws of defamation? They should certainly bear it in mind. So let me express a personal and professional relationship with famed libel lawyer, Paul Tweed, the chief opponent of extending the 2013 Westminster Defamation Act to Northern Ireland. I consider Paul a friend, and a globally respected expert in this area.

He points out how seldom our local courts are presented with a defamation hearing. A fair point, but while that can be easily measured, what is unknown is how often those with money and influence instruct solicitors to initiate a case; I suspect it is commonplace. The point, then, is not that a judge in Northern Ireland is rarely asked to rule on the laws of defamation; the point is the laws are regularly utilised behind the scenes to try to influence, warn off, possibly even threaten (although I do not point a finger at Mr Tweed in this regard).

I am bringing forward a Private Members' Bill to the Northern Ireland Assembly to introduce key aspects of this year's Westminster legislation. Why? The over-arching reason is that there is a need to rebalance the law in favour of freedom of speech, something recognised by all the main political parties in Great Britain who were as one in supporting the 2013 Defamation Act. This Act passed into law following appropriate public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. By contrast, the deputy First Minister told the Northern Ireland Assembly recently that the idea of bringing the new law into force here was never even placed on the Executive's agenda; rather, the Minister responsible, the DUP's Sammy Wilson MP MLA, simply decided the defamation laws here did not need reviewed. What system of government would you prefer? Full consultation and scrutiny leading to consensual change, or the stroke of a pen by an individual politician?

Apart from the shocking lack of consultation, there is a clear basket of benefits to be had from a review of the current law in Northern Ireland, not least for our economy. The House of Lords held a debate on the issue recently, where Lord Black of Brentwood warned that media jobs are at risk because Northern Ireland will be in danger of becoming the "libel capital" of the world. He put it like this: "When politicians set their face against the future, investment and jobs suffer .... Over 4,000 people work in publishing in Northern Ireland and another 2,000 work in broadcast." Simply, not reviewing our defamation laws will damage the very Creative Industries that the First Minister and deputy First Minster flag up as a symbol of the new Northern Ireland, shutting the door to high-end jobs for our young people. Lord Black, a media mogul of international standing, also made clear publications, including newspapers, will have to either bring forward a completely different, and sanitized version, for distribution in Northern Ireland, or not bother circulation in our jurisdiction, rather than risk being sued. Together, those are two compelling arguments regarding the chilling effect of the status quo.

A third was highlighted by Lord Bew, who, as Professor Paul Bew, continues to be a distinguished academic at Queen's University, Belfast. He highlights how the new 2013 legislation gives some comfort to academics who wish to be critical of people and positions in peer reviewed academic and scientific publications. This may sound a bit "other worldly" but if Queens and the University of Ulster want to attack the brightest and best academics - which they do - they will struggle if Northern Ireland continues to operate the most repressive of libel laws, while Great Britain supports the right to express honest opinion and raise matters of public interest. For example, do we really want a rich and powerful pharmaceutical company stopping an expert witness from expressing genuinely held and well researched views about a new drug or medical procedure?

Finally, and critically, we need new defamation laws to take account of the internet. If the publisher is to be held accountable for every single comment posted by a reader, then another stark choice arises: either spend two fortunes on the staff required to police social media traffic, or close down your operation.

I intend to open a full consultation process in the autumn before framing a Defamation Bill that will ensure our economy, our universities and research centres, and our citizens are not disadvantaged by being so badly out of step with the modern world that Belfast becomes known as "the town called sue."

(Published in the Belfast Telegraph today)