In this report the Constitution Committee says that the Defamation Bill may not provide publishers with a sufficiently robust and succinct defence against defamation claims on the basis that publication was in the public interest. The Committee question whether clause 4 of the Bill adequately reflects the case law on ‘Reynolds privilege’, which was established by the Law Lords in 1999 in Reynolds v Times Newspapers. The Committee also considers how the recommendations in the recent report from Lord Justice Leveson on the culture and practices of the press interact with the proposals for reforming defamation law. It says that that the assurance of a genuinely independent and effective regulatory system for the press, together with the creation of a speedy complaints-handling system and inexpensive arbitration, would help underwrite the case for a stronger public interest defence in defamation. The Committee says the House of Lords will want to consider the extent to which the Leveson recommendations would make recourse to the courts unnecessary. The Committee also says that more detail should be included in the Bill about the proposed defence for operators of websites.