MP plotting changes to libel laws Sir Edward Garnier earns thousands as a libel lawyer
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A senior Conservative MP, who opposes plans to prevent firms from suing unless they have suffered significant financial losses, earns thousands of pounds as a defamation barrister on top of his parliamentary salary.
Sir Edward Garnier, who was a minister until September, said last week that he was seeking to amend the Defamation Bill to scrap a clause that would have made it harder for companies to sue. At the same time, the MP for Harborough declares on the Commons register of interests that, since stepping down as a minister, he has received £37,000 from legal work as a senior QC – including from defamation cases. He is currently representing Lord McAlpine in his defamation case against Sally Bercow, the wife of the Commons Speaker.
While Sir Edward, 60, has acted within parliamentary rules and declared his financial interest as a libel lawyer, it has led some to question that the outside earnings of MPs could potentially compromise their views inside Parliament.
The Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Jon Trickett, said: “While Sir Edward was entirely within his rights to table these amendments, and has properly declared his interests, Parliament does need to look again at apparent conflicts of interests, even when these are declared.”
Sir Edward said his suggested changes to the Bill would not “make any difference” to whether he was instructed as a defamation barrister, and it was vital that MPs with specialist knowledge could speak out. “The whole point about Parliament is to debate policy ideas and law,” he said. “If every time someone stands up to debate something they are accused of being ill-motivated, out to feather their own nest or misconducting themselves, then we are not going to get anywhere.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments