The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic
Raab) Today, I am setting out the proposals to tackle strategic
lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPPs—to end
the abuse in UK courts, and of UK laws, by corrupt oligarchs and
Putin allies to protect democratic debate and to uphold our
fundamental liberties of free speech and a free press. Let me offer
the House a recent illustration of the problem we seek to tackle.
Earlier this month,...Request free
trial
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice ()
Today, I am setting out the proposals to tackle strategic
lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPPs—to end
the abuse in UK courts, and of UK laws, by corrupt oligarchs and
Putin allies to protect democratic debate and to uphold our
fundamental liberties of free speech and a free press.
Let me offer the House a recent illustration of the problem we
seek to tackle. Earlier this month, the British journalist Tom
Burgis was sued for libel in the High Court by the oligarch-owned
mining company ENRC. His book “Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is
Conquering the World” seeks to chart how dirty money is being
used around the world, highlighting instances of money
laundering, corruption and other wrongdoing.
ENRC did not just bring its claim against Mr Burgis’s publisher,
but made multiple claims against him personally, as the author of
articles, tweets and podcasts about his book. The High Court
dismissed ENRC’s claim at a preliminary stage, on the grounds
that the statements it had complained of were not defamatory, and
awarded costs to Mr Burgis. It should be said that ENRC has also
been under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office,
and during that period, ENRC has also brought two separate High
Court civil claims against the SFO itself, in 2019 and in
2021.
That is not a one-off case, however, and such cases often do not
end well. Certainly, they do not always end in the way the libel
suit I mentioned did. I give it as an illustration, but that
one-off case is part of a worrying and growing pattern of conduct
that we are starting to see, whereby those accused of wrongdoing
try to use their deep pockets and the UK courts to financially
bully their critics into submission.
I will try to give the House a sense of the scale of the problem.
Provisional figures from the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe,
CASE, estimates that there were 14 such cases in the UK last
year. It is worth pausing to reflect that that is a significant
increase from just two in 2020 and one in 2018. This is a
relatively recent, but burgeoning, phenomenon. Across Europe,
CASE has identified 538 SLAPP cases over the past decade, 26 of
them brought in this country, so this is not just a UK
problem.
As a matter of plain principle, it is wrong that unscrupulous
individuals and corporations are able to exploit our laws and our
courts in this jurisdiction with claims designed to muzzle
respected journalists, academics and campaigners, explicitly to
stop them from shining a light on corruption and links to
organised crime. If we think about it for a moment, this is a
modern-day struggle between David and Goliath. We have individual
journalists, authors and academics on the one hand, pitted
against billionaire oligarchs, some of whom bankroll the Kremlin,
on the other. We in this House cannot, and will not, allow our
courts and our justice system to be used by those kleptocrats to
intimidate and harass those who lift the lid on their murky
dealings and wrongdoing.
The stark reality of the problem runs far deeper than the
relatively small number of cases that will ever reach court. It
is fair to say that the high-profile cases that we know about are
likely to represent just the tip of the iceberg. This is probably
the most important point for the House today: SLAPPs have their
most pernicious impact through the pre-action letters and legal
pressure applied well before court proceedings are initiated.
Understandably, if a researcher or campaigner of relatively
modest means finds themselves on the receiving end of such
bullying tactics, the risk is that they will back down before a
formal case is begun, for fear of the sky-high costs and damages
that most working people in this country could not possibly
afford to bear.
That is the harm we must guard against—publishers and authors
forced to hesitate before publishing properly grounded stories,
and legitimate, well-researched investigative reporting reined
in, or perhaps not begun in the first place, for fear of the
crushing legal costs. The most serious and surreptitious danger
in all this is that SLAPPs then have a chilling effect on the
transparency that is essential to a healthy democracy.
Of course, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the urgency of
tackling what is a recent but none the less growing problem. The
same kleptocrats availing themselves of SLAPPs are often found
bankrolling President Putin’s war machine. As the Kremlin
silences Russia’s independent press and jails critics of its
illegal war, in this House and in this country we will stand up
for those shining a light on corruption and cronyism.
So today I have set out proposals to reform our libel laws and
launched a call for evidence, a copy of which is available in the
House, that asks for views on how to make these reforms as
targeted and effective as possible. Let me briefly summarise the
measures we are taking. First, we will consider whether it is
necessary to establish a legal definition in order to create a
higher threshold for SLAPP-type cases, and look at whether we
need to introduce stronger powers to enable our courts to strike
them out earlier as an abuse of process to deal with the risk,
the threats and the bullying that these cases involve. Secondly,
we will set out for consideration options to strengthen the
public interest defence. Thirdly, we will consider limiting legal
costs in SLAPP cases, perhaps capping the costs that claimants
can receive, to address the issue of the glaring inequality of
arms between the parties in these kinds of cases. Fourthly, our
proposals allow courts to put restraint orders on repeat
litigants and consider the case for a specific requirement for
SLAPP claimants to prove malice in libel cases. Fifthly, we will
review the wider existing defences in our libel laws to assess
whether and how they could and should be reformed to counter the
growing threat from SLAPPs. Sixthly, we will look at the
regulatory regime. In fairness, I should point out that the
Solicitors Regulation Authority recently issued new guidance
reminding solicitors of their duty to report misconduct,
identifying SLAPPs as an example of litigation for improper
purposes. We will assess how that regulation is working and
whether it is adequate in the light of the evidence that we
have.
This call for evidence is necessary to provide us with the most
robust basis on which then to move swiftly to introduce the
targeted reforms to deal with the problem at hand. These reforms
sit alongside our proposals for a Bill of Rights that will
reinforce freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is a
good example of why that Bill of Rights is necessary.
Today in this House we have an opportunity—I hope that hon.
Members on both sides will embrace it—to put President Putin and
his cronies on notice. We will not allow our courts to be abused
to censor those brave enough to call out corruption. We will
protect our free press, which is there precisely to hold the
powerful to account. We will defend freedom of speech—the liberty
that guards all our other freedoms in this country. Our reforms
will further strengthen free speech so that those with blood on
their hands and those with dirty money in their bank accounts are
no longer free to hide in the shadows. I commend this statement
to the House.
12.12pm
(Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement—and so does everyone on Twitter. It certainly marks a
major and welcome shift in Conservative party policy. When the
Prime Minister was Mayor of London, he actively encouraged
oligarchs to pursue vexatious libel claims through the British
courts, and it is good to see some belated recognition today of
just how wrong that was.
We are used to double standards from this Government when it
comes to Russian dirty money. Senior Ministers, including the
Prime Minister himself, partied with Kremlin-linked oligarchs
even as their plundered wealth flooded into London. They buried
the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report instead
of acting on the threats it exposed to our politics and to our
democracy. The reason there has been an increase in this kind of
lawsuit—what the Secretary of State called a “glaring inequality
of arms”—in this country is that the Conservative party got
itself hooked on the Kremlin’s dirty money. My right hon. Friend
the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill () has worked bravely to expose
the Conservatives’ increasing dependency on Kremlin-linked
oligarchs. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how many
Conservative party donors have used a SLAPP to silence free
speech?
These measures, welcome though they are, are too little, too
late. Labour called on the Government to fix this problem way
back in January. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith
() demanded clearer guidance
for judges, tougher regulation of law firms, and legislation to
control costs so astronomical that no one can afford to stand up
to Putin’s bullying billionaires. My right hon. and learned
Friend the Leader of the Opposition demanded legislation two
years ago.
The Conservatives’ track record is frankly problematic. They
ignored the Leveson inquiry when it called for low-cost
litigation for claimants and defendants in media cases. Instead,
they sided with Putin’s oligarchs against British journalists and
campaigners until it was far too late. The Secretary of State
says that he wants to end abuses in UK courts by Putin’s cronies,
but he is proposing a consultation that does not finish until 19
May. Has he made an estimate of how much these oligarchs will
continue to abuse the current skewed system until then, as they
attempt to hide their collaboration with the Kremlin? Let us be
clear: their money funds Putin’s wars of aggression in Chechnya,
Georgia, the Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine. The Government
must act much faster if they want to cripple Putin’s war machine
and stop it slaughtering the children of Ukraine-.
The Secretary of State mentions the Solicitors Regulation
Authority, but what penalties will be imposed on firms acting in
these cases? What is the SRA doing to check that solicitors are
doing proper due diligence on oligarch clients and the source of
their wealth before helping themselves to a share of it? What
action is he taking to stop law firms helping the Russian state
to make money that helps to fund Putin’s war machine? Putting
Putin “on notice” is not enough—the Government must end this
corruption now.
It is a bit surprising, on an issue of such seriousness, that the
hon. Gentleman resorted to making the usual partisan political
points. Frankly, I think the House can rise above his partisan
approach.
The hon. Gentleman says that this is too little, too late. In
fact, in January, when he says Labour called for this, Justice
Ministers had already made it clear that we were actively working
on proposals. Indeed, I made that clear in the House in February.
He referred back to 2018, or a couple of years ago. We had one
case in 2018. As I said, this is now a burgeoning problem.
Frankly, an element of “Captain Hindsight” seems to have crept
along the shadow Front Bench.
In relation to the broader points that the hon. Gentleman makes
about oligarchs, I set out in the House yesterday the scale and
the level of sanctions that we have imposed—indeed, with
cross-party support. We have led the way internationally.
The hon. Gentleman did not really make any substantive points
about the consultation. [Interruption.] He did not really,
actually—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol West () is chuntering from a
sedentary position. He did not really ask me anything—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. The hon. Lady should not be chuntering from a sedentary
position. She is a very senior Member of the House and she should
know better.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman taking some time to look
over the proposals in a slightly more sober way. I hope that, on
reflection, he will agree to that, given that some Labour
Members, particularly the hon. Member for Rhondda () and the right hon. Member for
Birmingham, Hodge Hill (), as well as my right hon.
Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), have
shown that this can be done in a cross-party way.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
I unreservedly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement.
This has been a seriously cross-party issue. The hon. Member for
Rhondda () has taken a terrific part in
it, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill () and many others have engaged in
it, because it is so important: we are talking about a
fundamental defence of free speech. This is going to be difficult
but it is also going to be urgent. The one point on which I agree
with the Opposition spokesman is that dealing with this will be
urgent, because it is not just about oligarchs. We have already
debated in this Chamber cases like that of Mohamed Amersi—a
disgraceful case brought against a former Member of this House.
The timetable is important. I unreservedly welcome to this, but
will my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of when
he expects legislation to come out of the call for evidence he
has announced?
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to pay
tribute to the cross-party nature of this, notwithstanding the
statement by the Opposition spokesman. That is very important,
and he has helped to lead it, as is often the case. He asked
about the timetable. As he will see, these are substantive
proposals—not a Green Paper but a set of proposals. It is
important, with regard to libel, which is there to defend the
reputation of decent, upstanding people, that we get this right.
It is about testing the evidence so that when we go to
legislation, we get this right. After the consultation, I will
look for the earliest opportunity and the earliest legislative
vehicle. It may end up being a third Session Bill, but he has my
reassurance that we are already looking at the appropriate
legislative vehicle. It depends how much of this we do in primary
legislation. I suspect most of it will require primary
legislation.
(Lanark and Hamilton East)
(SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. I welcome it, and the sentiments behind the proposed
changes. For too long, Russian oligarchs have used their
ill-gotten wealth to threaten and silence those who would
rightfully seek to expose them. We know that the UK is awash with
dirty money, whether it is the London laundromat, golden visa
schemes or utilising UK law firms to silence journalists and
intimidate activists who rightfully call out their unethical
behaviour. Vladimir Ashurkov, a Russian political activist who
was an executive director of Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption
Foundation, said that SLAPP lawsuits were
“acts of hybrid warfare which are used to weaken the UK’s
democracy, judicial system and fundamental freedoms”.
Given that we know that Kremlin-linked oligarchs use SLAPP
lawsuits to silence criticism and to attempt to control the
public narrative, what steps is the UK taking to ensure that we
cannot be manipulated to silence free speech, while protecting
journalists and political activists? What steps are the Secretary
of State and the UK Government taking to name and shame such
companies and will specific secondary legislation be proposed to
strengthen existing defamation and libel laws?
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful and cogent statement,
intervention and set of questions. I point out to her that we are
dealing with the tier 1 visa, and the sanctions regime, both in
the number of people and entities, plus the scope—I think it is
now at $45 billion—demonstrates what we are doing on that front.
The substantive proposals are all set out in the call for
evidence, which is available in the House. She will find all the
answers. I think it will be a combination of things. There are
regulatory matters through the SRA regime that we want to look
at, particularly around the ethics for solicitors, where there
will be elements of perhaps secondary legislation. When we are
dealing with libel law and the Defamation Act 2013, it will
require changes to primary legislation, but I do not want to
pre-empt the outcome of the call for evidence.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify what has
been a stunningly quick recent phenomenon, bearing in mind the
exponential increase in cases in the past year alone. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight () for discussing this matter with
me when I was in office. We could see this trajectory rising at
an alarming rate. The Secretary of State is absolutely right now
in his consultation to build on the work we did in the Defamation
Act 2013, where we raised thresholds to bring libel cases, and
strengthening the public interest defence is absolutely the right
way to go. Will he undertake to look not only at this phenomenon,
but other areas where we see individuals or groups bringing cases
purely on the basis that they wish to get disclosure or
information from Government that is designed to make some sort of
political or power point, as opposed to wanting the merits of the
case dealt with by a court?
I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. and learned
Friend did in his tenure as Justice Secretary. He and I have
looked at various things in this House together over many years,
and the one thing we have always agreed on is the primacy of free
speech. It is not entirely unqualified—libel laws are there for a
reason—but he is absolutely right that the quintessential British
liberty that guards all the others is freedom of speech and
expression. However troubling it may be for politicians to have
the journalistic scrutiny, rigour and all that, we understand in
our hearts that it is critical to a healthy, vigorous democratic
society, and I will certainly look at any other examples that he
may wish to raise where we see this kind of legalised bullying
through the courts and our jurisdiction.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
This is all really good stuff, and I am delighted that we are
moving in the right direction. I always want the Justice
Secretary to go faster; he can be very slow in delivering what he
knows I want him to deliver. The real trouble we have had in this
country is that the people of Britain have never known the truth
about Russian money, because journalists, broadcasters, sometimes
politicians and Governments have been too frightened to go to
court because they know that the pockets on the other side are so
deep, and they are terrified they will lose their home or their
business, or the Government will lose millions of pounds on
behalf of the British taxpayer. Can I ask him about the seizure
of goods? We will need to seize assets. Take Chelsea football
club—we will not be able to sell it on until we have seized it.
Will we not need legislation for that, as well, and will he
ensure that there is a proper tender for the sale of that, so
that it does not go to somebody who is equally dodgy?
Forgive me if I do not get drawn into Chelsea football club,
which is outside the scope of what we are discussing in this
statement. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. Since doing
BackBench Business debates on Magnitsky in 2012, he and I have
always, whatever else we may differ on, made common cause on the
need for robust sanctions. He has been one of the leading lights
in relation to SLAPPs, and I will certainly look carefully at the
important specific points he has made.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am very impressed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s action, and I
thank him. It is a great shame that over recent years, we have
allowed a corrupting cottage industry of legalised intimidation
and legalised gangsterism to be offered by unscrupulous law firms
in this country to some of the most wretched and unscrupulous
people on earth. I hope that the senior partners in firms such as
Carter-Ruck, CMS, Mishcon and Harbottle & Lewis will consider
whether they feel that they have played an entirely negative role
in enabling Kremlin neo-fascism. My brief question is that I was
bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on this issue so that
the tools of abuse—data protection, privacy and libel laws—can be
wrapped up in a series of amendments. Should I continue to try to
bring forward that private Member’s Bill in the hope that I can
help write some clauses that would be of value in an upcoming
Bill, or should I offer that in evidence to the consultation
process? I am keen for the Bill to be strong, just and
transparent.
My hon. Friend should do both. I thank him for his campaigning
tenacity on all this. As ever, he is very forensic, as well as
tenacious. I make one point. He makes a perfectly reasonable
point about legal ethics—as I mentioned, we will look at the SRA
regime, which is important—but I want to avoid this being an
anti-lawyer push, because the vast majority of legal
practitioners are as aghast as us at the abuses we see. Let us
have a targeted approach, because we are more likely to be
effective at dealing with the real problem that he has been so
tenacious and eloquent in highlighting.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
I have a daughter who works for a London law firm. I join my
colleagues on all sides in saying that speed is of the essence.
The fact of the matter is that some of the luxury yachts have
already left, and we do not want that to happen in this case.
When I was an undergraduate at the London School of Economics, I
remember Professor Michael Oakeshott saying that the courts of
England, like the Ritz Hotel, are open to everyone. That is the
case, so I welcome the measures today. I want them to be speedy,
and I want everything we do to make clear where our support is in
terms of this terrible invasion of Ukraine.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in this
area and the very constructive points he has made. We need to act
swiftly, and I said that in my statement. We also need to
recognise that we are constantly balancing the right of
honourable people to protect their reputation—libel law has a
role to play in this country—with not allowing libel law to be
hijacked by those with deep pockets to muzzle the very
transparency that we want in this country. That is a balance, and
we need to be careful to get that balance right. We also remain a
global country with a global outlook, and we want investment into
this country. That is crucial and is part of our USP. What we do
not want is dirty money or the money of those with blood on their
hands. We will move swiftly, but the most important thing is that
we do not do this in a knee-jerk way, because when this House
does things in a knee-jerk way, we get it wrong and we repent at
leisure. Let us move swiftly, but firmly. That is why the call
for evidence is about how we shape these reforms, not whether we
do them.
(Stroud) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to set out the harm, intimidation
and cost bullying that comes even before there is live
litigation, as that happens in many libel matters generally. I
also welcome him guarding against being anti-lawyer, particularly
as he is doing so much work in other areas to undo the historical
attacks on lawyers in this country. Thinking about the
indispensable free press in this country, it is difficult for us
in the UK to comprehend how narrow and limited is the information
that Russian people, for example, receive, let alone what they
understand can be trusted and impartial. Will he clarify what the
Government are doing more widely to promote press freedom?
As ever, my hon. Friend absolutely nails the point. These reforms
are targeted at a specific problem, which is recent and
burgeoning, and we do not want to conflate that because it might
hit other areas and do ancillary or incidental harm and because
that is a displacement of our effort and our energies.
My hon. Friend asked more generally about what we are doing
around the world. When I was Foreign Secretary, we ramped up the
Media Freedom Coalition, which, in my time, we chaired with the
Canadians. I am not sure whether it is them or us who currently
hold the chairmanship—I think it is the Canadians. We expanded
that coalition. The idea was to help with the legislation that
countries have to protect free speech and to ensure that, when
journalists come under attack, they get legal support. We raised
quite a lot of money and we keep working on it. I know that the
current Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic and energetic about
it.
(Rochdale) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Justice Secretary’s statement. He has well
specified the problem and the need for urgency, so I urge maximum
speed, although he is right to be cautious about getting the
legislation right. There should be a presumption that the public
interest test is right. That test is not synonymous with the
British state; I hope he would agree with that. Nor is it
necessarily, in this complicated world, synonymous only with the
UK national interest. Will he ensure that the test takes the
widest possible view about what is good for this complicated
world, because that matters against the oligarchs?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes one of the most
important points. If he looks at the call for evidence and the
menu of options that we set out, we look at the threshold for
bringing SLAPPs and whether there ought to be a new right of
public participation. We look at the various defences in
defamation law to see whether they are sufficient to deal with
this problem. That includes the public defence and the serious
harm test of a defamatory statement. We are trying to look at it
from every angle. I should add for completeness that we will look
at whether we are getting the right balance in terms of being an
attractive destination for litigants to want to solve disputes,
which is a great USP for the country, and whether we have allowed
and given succour to libel tourism in this particularly
pernicious area. We will look at all those things and I look
forward to his further thoughts in those areas.
(Maldon) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he
said, however, SLAPPs are an international phenomenon that are
used across Europe to stifle investigative journalism. Most
notorious, perhaps, are the 47 lawsuits that were being brought
against Daphne Caruana Galizia at the time of her murder in Malta
in 2017. Does he therefore agree that protecting freedom of the
press properly will require international action? Can he say what
discussions he has had with his counterparts in other
jurisdictions to bring about co-ordinated action?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I mentioned the
European figures; it is clearly a much broader phenomenon. One of
the things that we have looked at is the threshold. To give an
illustration of a jurisdiction that we have looked at, in the
United States, there needs to be malice, I think, for most libel
cases. Under the US constitution, there are a whole series of
judicially enforceable rights that are probably stronger than in
this country under the European convention on human rights or
otherwise in relation to free speech. We will look carefully at
the bespoke libel laws that we have and we are mindful of the
lessons that we can learn from other jurisdictions.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I welcome the statement and especially the Justice Secretary’s
words about it being the tip of the iceberg. I was caught up in
the issue when Navalny released his list and I named Abramovich
in this House as someone who we needed to look at sanctioning. I
then tried to do a follow-up story with a newspaper but, lo and
behold, the lawyers got involved and the newspaper never printed
it. I wonder how many such stories that shed sunlight on our
democracy have been stifled.
The Justice Secretary will know, however, that it is not just
oligarchs who do that. For example, Sienna Miller said that she
had to stop her case against the News Corp newspapers in December
because she could not afford to continue to take the case to
court. Will the legislation cover not just the oligarchs who
desperately need looking at but anyone who seeks to use the law
to silence the truth?
Yes. Whatever other differences we have had over the years, I pay
tribute to the hon. Lady’s campaigning tenacity on the issue. I
think she is right. Of course, although we have oligarchs and
Ukraine in mind, it would need to be something that applied
across the board.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I believe strongly and passionately in
freedom of the press. We see all too vividly at the moment how
important that is with the incredibly brave journalism coming out
of Ukraine, yet that freedom has been increasingly threatened in
recent years, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will
he reassure journalists and the wider public that he will take
whatever steps are necessary to uphold freedom of the press and
freedom of speech more widely?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I remember him as a
television news presenter, so he has first-hand experience of the
issue. He is right that we need to deal with the problem. More
broadly, we have seen all sorts of incursions on free speech over
recent years. There has been, I think, some collective denial
about this. That is partly because, in some areas, if it is an
issue that we feel torn about, perhaps people turn a blind eye.
We need to redevelop the culture—frankly, the attitude—that we
listen and perhaps embrace views that we do not always find
comfortable. Freedom of speech is the liberty that guards all the
others. That is why, on top of these reforms, our Bill of Rights
reforms, which will strengthen and reinforce freedom of speech,
are so necessary and timely.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the statement. As ever on these occasions, the devil
will be in the detail, but I share hon. Members’ concern for
urgency in disabling the enablers of the oligarchs. It is a war
of attrition, but it is not just against journalists; it is also
against Government agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office,
which ENRC took to court in a SLAPP litigation, as well as an
individual who formerly worked for the Serious Fraud Office. When
the Justice Secretary is considering the legislation, will he
consider creating a protection for such agencies from that sort
of litigation, perhaps through a complaints system for anyone who
wants to take up an issue with an agency such as the Serious
Fraud Office, rather than them going through really expensive
litigation that wears down the resources of those agencies to do
the job for which we set them up?
The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Yes, we will look
across the board at the defendants in these SLAPP cases. We in
this House, because of the privilege that Parliament affords,
have the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that, come
what may, those abuses are not swept under the carpet and that
the issues that need to be aired, whether through authors,
academics or journalists, are not muzzled.
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I was lucky
enough to meet Tom Burgis recently, who, alongside other
journalists such as Oliver Bullough and others, does an
incredible job of highlighting the dirty money, corruption and
general economic crime. The other cohort that does that most
effectively, and has been involved in every case that I have been
involved in in those circumstances, is whistleblowers. Will he,
with his Home Office colleagues, seek to put protections and
compensation for whistleblowers into a future economic crime
Bill? Those people are critical in identifying this stuff and
bringing those guilty of it to justice.
My hon. Friend makes good points both on SLAPPs and more widely
on whistleblowers. I will make sure we have that angle in mind
and speak to our Home Office colleagues on the legislation it is
looking at.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his clear
commitment to protect our legal rights across the whole of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is good
to hear positive stories coming out of this place. I have long
expressed concern that those with money are able to tie legal
knots around those with limited funds. Does he believe these
proposals go far enough to protect freedom of speech and ensure
money does not equate to legal victory?
The hon. Gentleman has been a staunch supporter of our liberties
in this House and in the United Kingdom. I hope when he looks at
the series of options—there are over 30 pages—he will see that we
have covered all the bases, whether it is the threshold for
SLAPPs to bring libel claims, the cost protections, or the
ability to strike out or have a permission stage to deal at an
earlier stage with abusive claims. If we have not, precisely
because this is a call for evidence, we will need to look at
other areas as well.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
It is abhorrent that corrupt elites have sought to suppress legal
criticism in this country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in
saying this type of litigation has no place in our society? Could
he go further and highlight what other steps the Government are
taking to crack down on these dodgy elites exploiting our
country?
As my hon. Friend will know, we are sanctioning over 100
individuals and entities—I think the sum involved is $45
billion—and the economic crime Bill has come in. I regard the
issue we are dealing with today as a forensic target issue. We
will move swiftly—I have heard hon. Members calls for that—but it
is right that we move on a firm basis, identify and target the
problem itself, and that the pendulum does not swing too far the
other way. I am confident that we can get the balance right, but
we need to test the evidence for the reforms I have put forward
and then proceed as swiftly as possible to legislate.
|
