My Lords, I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord May, how much I appreciated his earlier speech. This is the first of many occasions in this Committee that we turn to the issue that he raised with such clarity and emotion. I hope that as he read our report he felt that he and we were on the same side on this issue.
What to do with corporations in the context of defamation was one of the issues on which the Government wished us to consult. When they produced their draft Bill, it included 10 draft clauses and a range of about half a dozen issues that were clearly far too difficult for the Government to have come to a judgment on, and so they left it to us to offer advice and did not even bother trying to draft the appropriate clauses and remedies. We were happy to take up that challenge. We turn to the first of them now.
This is the first time that the word “chill” has been used in Committee and I assure my noble colleagues that it will not be the last. If any Member of the Committee is tempted to believe that the emphasis on the words “cost” and “chill” are overdone out of my mouth on behalf of the committee, I invite them to re-read the evidence given to our committee. Corporations do seek to exercise chill. I quote from paragraph 89 of The Government’s Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill:
“It is unacceptable that corporations are able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel claims which they know the publisher cannot afford to defend and where there is no realistic prospect of serious financial loss”.
That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord May, introduced in our earlier discussion. It is a form of bullying. It is trying to exercise right simply on the basis of size and financial strength. That is not what the law of the land is supposed to be about. I thought hard and long and decided not to trespass on Committee time by citing examples, but there are plenty of examples in the evidence that was given to us.
The key phrase is, where the publisher is known not to be able to afford, and where the corporation is not going to suffer, any “serious financial loss”. We took the view that corporations should not entirely lose the right to sue for defamation because things could be said about a company or its product that were true or so seriously untrue that the viability of the company was put at risk. We heard various suggestions about how this might be addressed—the Australian model where the ability to sue is limited to a company of 20 or 10 or fewer, if my memory serves me correctly. Therefore, we protected the right for corporations to sue but we linked it explicitly to serious financial loss.
I want to read the Government’s response because I say to my noble friend, with as much fellowship and camaraderie as I can muster, that I thought that this was one of his weakest responses to a perfectly sensible and balanced suggestion. Paragraph 90 states:
“We share the Committee’s view that the inequality of financial means that exists where a large corporation sues or threatens smaller companies, individuals or non-governmental organisations lies at the heart of current concerns”.
That was a longer version of what the noble Lord, Lord May, suggests. Paragraph 91 states:
“As indicated in our consultation paper, we believe that measures such as the new procedure for determining key preliminary issues”—
I am not quite sure what that new procedure is but I guess that we will learn in Committee—
“and the introduction of a serious harm test”,
is what the Government want. The committee wanted “serious and substantial”. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Lester that I did not think that he was making a light-hearted comment. But if we do not thrash out these issues here in order to inform the legislation, what is the point of us having Committee stage at all? I suppose that, fortunately for all of us, the public are not going to spend an undue amount of time on the esoteric arguments and the fundamental legal principles that we debate here. They are just going to look at the end product. However, we should not be ashamed of the process that we go through in order to arrive at the best end product that it is possible for us to offer to the people of this country.
The determination of,
“key preliminary issues and the introduction of a serious harm test will help to reduce the cost and length of proceedings and deter trivial and speculative litigation, and should lessen the likelihood of attempts being made by corporate or wealthy individual claimants to intimidate defendants with limited resources”.
I have to say to my noble friend that that is a spectacular case of hope over experience. Had he said that when he graced us with his presence, I would have glared at my colleagues to ensure that none of them smiled inappropriately at that point. I think that that is far short of the standard which Governments should set in responding to serious investigative efforts on behalf of Parliament.
It raises for me that old problem to which I have made reference already. Cost is at the heart of this and I hope that noble and learned Members of this Committee will have read our report with care. At no point did we seek to criticise or even directly comment on judicial procedures. That was not our responsibility. As chairman, I was not prepared to have anything written down which even hinted at a lack of confidence in the judiciary. But that having been said, we have costs that cannot be sustained and are counter to the legal rights of so many of our citizens. We have mechanisms that relate government to the judiciary. If case management, which is our unanimous view, is adding to cost, it needs to be addressed. We did not seek to address case management in the Bill, which would have been, in my view as chairman, inappropriate. However, we have to suggest to the Government that they need to find accepted and acceptable ways of conveying to the judiciary that changes need to be made in case management in order to reduce costs and thus make
this Defamation Bill effective for the maximum number of people. I am afraid that what the Government said in response to that suggestion signals to me, at least, that we have failed to persuade them of the seriousness of that argument, and so I repeat it.
5.30 pm