My Lords, again, I want to be able to think about and to look at the arguments that have been deployed. As I have said, I am not so experienced
in the law as to know where this balance is, particularly on case management. I know that the Select Committee and a lot of the evidence given by individuals and organisations as this Bill progressed emphasised that good case management was part of the key to dealing with early resolution and the problem of cost. Whether it is wise or even proper to try to write these matters into an Act of Parliament rather than trust the judiciary to deal with these matters, certainly I look forward to a meeting with the Master of the Rolls early in the new year and to talk to others about this.
In the mean time, let me put on record the responses to these two amendments. Amendment 5 would make it compulsory for the parties to use a form of alternative dispute resolution before a defamation claim could come before the court. The Government are firmly committed to reducing the costs of defamation proceedings and to resolving legal disputes by techniques other than litigation wherever possible. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules puts the onus on courts to encourage and facilitate the use of alternative dispute resolution, and the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation already requires parties to consider some form of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation or early neutral evaluation.
6.45 pm
However, we believe that it would not be appropriate to compel parties to do this before they can bring a claim. Voluntary participation means that the parties approach mediation or neutral evaluation in a positive, conciliatory manner, rather than from an adversarial stance. There may clearly be cases in which the use of a form of ADR can assist in resolving key issues or, indeed, the claim in its entirety. However, there will equally be other cases where there is no real basis for a settlement to be reached by this means. All that simply adds to costs and delays.
We have committed to introducing costs protection in defamation proceedings, and the Civil Justice Council is currently considering how this can operate most effectively. This will help both claimants and defendants of limited means to bring and defend claims in which there is an inequality of arms. There are also the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules which we propose to enable key decisions on issues such as meaning at as early a stage as possible, once proceedings are commenced.
Amendment 7 has a similar effect to Amendment 5, in that it requires some form of alternative dispute resolution to be used, by providing that voluntary arbitration should be sought if mediation or neutral evaluation is deemed to be unsuccessful. As I have indicated, we do not consider that forcing the parties to use ADR is the right approach.
The proposed new clause would also prescribe in statute a list of key issues that the court may decide if the claim has not been settled by ADR. These substantially reflect the issues that we intend to include in rule changes to enable early resolution, together with some additions. This amendment is unnecessary because provisions governing the new procedure can perfectly adequately be addressed through amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules. As we have indicated in the update note that we have provided to the House, we
intend in the new year to seek the agreement of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to these changes, and the Master of the Rolls has indicated that he is content for us to do this.
Taken together, the package of measures that are in train will ensure that costs in defamation proceedings are reduced and that parties are able to secure effective access to justice. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.