Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Members are now asked to set out their informal views on the clauses and amendments to the Defamation Bill for the record. No votes will be taken. Formal clause-by-clause consideration will follow next week when votes may be required: that is a bit of an understatement.

The Committee will proceed through the clauses and I will put the Questions informally. Where there are possible amendments, the informal Questions will be put on the amendments first, and then the informal Question on the informal amended clause will follow.

If members have any other amendments that are not listed in the Bill table, they should indicate that clearly.

Are we ready to proceed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 1 — "Serious harm": will members confirm that they understand the clause and the suggested amendments?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): We will now take amendment 1.1 at the end of the clause. In respect of amendment 1.2 relating to the striking down of trivial claims, will members indicate informally whether they will support such an amendment?

The Committee Clerk: Members have maybe indicated — keep me right here — that they are not enamoured of any of the amendments, and the Question is about whether the clause stand part of the Bill, but you are not in a position to say that just yet. Would that be fair, Chairperson?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Bearing in mind our deliberations, that is a suitable description of our position. Do we agree with that?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 2 —"Truth": will members confirm that they understand the clause and the suggested amendments?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): In respect of amendment 2.1 relating to the requirement for a pretrial hearing in order to determine the meaning of words at issue, will members indicate informally whether they will support such an amendment? Were we broadly in favour of this?

The Committee Clerk: No. Keep me right, but the Committee was happy enough with the clause as it is but was not bothered about the amendment. Is that correct?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. Are we agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 3 —"Honest opinion": will members confirm that they understand the clause and the suggested amendment?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): In respect of amendment 3.1, which relates to reasonable belief, will members indicate informally whether they would support such an amendment? From our conversations, we were broadly in favour.

The Committee Clerk: I am sorry, Chairperson. I have to come in. Have we lost members? Do we know where we are on the Bill table? We are on page 34. This is the one about honest opinion. This is around social media commentators making comments based on what professional journalists had said. The Committee indicated that it was, informally, happy enough with the amendment and, informally, happy enough with the clause. Is that correct?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Yes. I think that that is where we were.

The Committee Clerk: If members are lost, just indicate. This is getting complicated.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK, that is great. Right.

Clause 4 — "Publication on matter of public interest": will members confirm that they understand the clause? No amendments were proposed. Agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Will members indicate informally whether they wish to oppose or support the proposition? Where are we on —

The Committee Clerk: Members had indicated informally that they were happy enough with clause 4.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Are we still happy?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): We can safely say that we are not yet there on clause 5 — "Operators of websites". Will members confirm that they understand the clause and the suggested amendments?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. I think that we are —

The Committee Clerk: If I have understood members correctly, Chairperson, they are not enamoured of the amendments, and, next week, the Question will be on whether the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Agreed?

The Committee Clerk: Lovely.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 6 — "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc": will members confirm that they understand the clause? No amendments were proposed. Are we agreed on that? We were agreed that we were content for that one to go forward.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 7 — "Reports etc protected by privilege": will members confirm that they understand the clause?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Yes. We were agreed on that. Will members indicate informally whether they wish to oppose or support the proposition? I think that we were agreed.

The Committee Clerk: Yes, we were happy with that one.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Are we agreed?

Mr Allister: I have a reservation about clause 7(5).

The Committee Clerk: You have.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. Clause 8 — "Single publication rule": will members confirm that they understand the clause?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Will members indicate informally whether they wish to oppose or support the proposition?

The Committee Clerk: Some concerns were raised around the single publication rule. Sinn Féin members informally indicated that they may oppose it and others expressed concerns. There are no amendments proposed, so the Question will be that the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 9 — "Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc": will members confirm that they understand the clause and the suggested amendments?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Our view on clause 9 is broadly supportive?

The Committee Clerk: Although, there was some opposition —

Mr Allister: Some opposition.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): From Jim.

The Committee Clerk: It was otherwise OK. There was no question about it. It is correcting a typographical error, but the other amendment is really to do with stand part, so we can vote on that as required.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 10 — "Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc": will members confirm that they understand the clause?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): On clause 10, we are —

The Committee Clerk: I think that there is —

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): People are undecided.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): I think that we can safely say that we are undecided.

The Committee Clerk: Yes, and likewise on the amendment.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clause 11 —"Trial to be without a jury unless the court orders otherwise": will members confirm that they understand the clause?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): The Committee is divided on that clause and will not come to a position on it.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Is the Committee agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Clauses 12 to 19 deal with various topics. No amendments were proposed to those clauses. Will members confirm that they understand the clauses?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Will members indicate informally whether they wish to oppose or support the proposition. The issue with —

The Committee Clerk: Commencement. I will write to the Bill sponsor today about that.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. We can consider that next week.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. Are we agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Amendment 20.1 refers to the single meaning rule and the bipartite proposal. Does the Committee understand that?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): I think that we indicated that we had no issue with that one.

The Committee Clerk: The Committee did not support it.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): It did not support it. Yes. There was no support for it.

Amendment 20.2 refers to discursive remedies. I think that we were undecided about that.

The Committee Clerk: That was a no as well, I think.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): That was a no. Yes.

Amendment 20.3 refers to the review of clauses. Will members confirm that they understand the amendment?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): I think that we are again —

The Committee Clerk: Some members indicated their opposition to that amendment, but I think that the majority of members will possibly informally support it.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Yes. OK. Are we agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Is the Committee content to undertake formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill next week, when members will have first sight of the text of the Bill sponsor's amendments? When do we think that we will get those?

The Committee Clerk: We will probably get them on Tuesday evening. Sorry, members. That is not usual. The Committee Stage is due to finish at the end of the month, so next week is really the only time that we have to do it. That is why we came back so early so that we had time to clear up our other business and hear from the Bill sponsor. It is far from ideal, but there we are.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. Are we agreed?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): OK. Thank you very much indeed to the Clerk and his team. Can we also send our regards to the Examiner of Statutory Rules and her team for their work?

The Committee Clerk: Sorry, Chair. I will be writing to the Bill sponsor anyway, but is the Committee content for me to write to him, for his information, to indicate where the Committee is informally with the amendments?

The Committee Clerk: Lovely.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Thank you.

Mr Catney: May I ask a question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Go ahead, Pat.

Mr Catney: Given that the Bill sponsor has to write back and we are doing clause-by-clause consideration next week, do we still have time, with a fair wind, to push the Bill through within this mandate?

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): I think that we do.

The Committee Clerk: Hopefully, the Committee will report on 28 January, which is the set time. That leaves just enough time for a private Member's Bill. It allows the Bill sponsor a couple of weeks to get himself together for Consideration Stage. It allows just enough time for all the stages to run through and for one or two weeks afterwards in case there is any pushback from the Attorney General or the Advocate General. There is just enough time, which is why we cannot wait.

The Chairperson (Dr Aiken): Yes. OK.