Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateChris Clarkson
Main Page: Chris Clarkson (Conservative - Heywood and Middleton)Department Debates - View all Chris Clarkson's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesI am not familiar with Magna Carta, but I suspect our common law has moved on somewhat since then.
The uncertainty about the scope and effect of the new clause also raises the somewhat unfortunate spectre of new and unexpected avenues for litigation, when these measures are intended to do the exact opposite. I am clear that the drafting of the Bill makes its purpose transparent. It is a purpose that is consistent with rights already established in domestic and international law and that addresses the fundamental need to ensure access to justice for both claimants and defendants.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the heart of this is the application of the reasonableness test? Although I agree with the thrust of new clause 1, I think there is an opportunity to apply the existing framework to achieve its goals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, the idea of freedom of speech and public participation is already a fundamental part of our common law, but even when we are applying the reasonableness test we often give judges instruction on how they should interpret reasonableness. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is an opportunity to ensure, before Report, that we have embedded that concept?
I am a very reasonable person—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad that all Members agree.