So we're talking about alternative dispute resolution. Again, it returns to my central point that the underlying law has to be right and it has to be accessible. So when you look at libel -- and many of the cases -- many of the more egregious cases that have come up in the course of the Inquiry are actually libel cases, although it's not within the terms of reference of the Inquiry as such -- what we are very concerned about is that libel doesn't currently work for either party. It doesn't seem to prevent some of those really grotesque attacks on individuals' reputation, but at the same time, it is being used very effectively to silence all kind of publishers, NGOs, scientists, researchers, academics, book publishers, authors, historians et cetera, who don't have the resource to fight those cases.
So in order to get resolution for both parties we have found, in our research, that mediation is actually phenomenally surprisingly successful in more than 90 per cent of cases where it's been used. Early neutral evaluation has been used less but it does -- in the cases where it has been used, it has been equivalently successful.
So what we are recommending through our alternative libel project is that those options should be made not mandatory -- because there are some problems attached to making forms of ADR mandatory and in some cases it may be inappropriate. The rights and wrongs may be so black and white that actually it's a waste of people's time to try to find some sort of settlement, but in most cases there should be a heavy incentive to go down those routes, which would be recognised by the courts in the costs awards --