Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the use of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation
(SLAPPs) and their impact on public scrutiny.
The Advocate-General for Scotland ( of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, strategic lawsuits against public participation, or
SLAPPs, are an abuse of the legal process designed to close down
inquiries and prevent the publication of information in the
public interest. It is the Government’s intention to pursue
primary legislation for targeted anti-SLAPP reform as soon as
parliamentary time allows. We remain committed to upholding our
fundamental democratic values of free speech and a free press,
ending abuse of the legal systems of the United Kingdom and
defending investigations in the public interest.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I detect a lack of
urgency. There is a good reason why these cases are known as
intimidation cases. As he said, they are used to stifle public
interest investigations by journalists, exposing those involved
in corruption, illicit finance and political wrongdoing, aided
and abetted by London law firms through forum shopping. This has
a clear chilling effect on press freedoms, as Catherine Belton,
Tom Burgis or even those working abroad, such as Paul Radu, can
testify. Will the Minister take forward with a level of urgency
proposals put forward by the anti-SLAPP coalition to allow for
claims to be filtered out at an early stage by courts, to put in
penalties to deter meritless claims and to provide compensation
for those targeted?
of Dirleton (Con)
In relation to the first two of the ameliorative matters which
the noble Baroness identified, I can assure the House that those
are within consideration and will be enacted in the forthcoming
measure. As to the third matter, although the noble Baroness
chides me, I can assure the House that what she styles as a delay
is not in fact procrastination but a matter of identifying a
suitable legislative vehicle to put these very important matters
on to the statute book.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government claim to prize and to defend free
speech, and the Minister has said that the Government’s intention
is to introduce primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time
allows. The problem is that fear of a costs order does not deter
rich organisations and individuals from abusing the court
process, with unmeritorious cases brought only to stifle
journalists’ criticism of their activities. So what has been
holding the Government back from legislating to enable such cases
to be stopped in their tracks, and how long will it be before the
primary legislation will be introduced?
of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the delay in this matter, if I may style it
in those terms, is not a case of the Government attempting to
procrastinate and to kick the matter into the long grass. Rather,
it is, as I said in my Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question, a
matter of identifying the suitable legislative vehicle into which
these measures can be inserted. Were we to proceed to insert this
into, for example, the economic crime Bill, which was considered
and dismissed, the risk would have been that we would have framed
this very serious abuse of process too narrowly. That is why it
is important that we legislate appropriately as well as quickly.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Communications
and Digital Committee and refer the House to my recent
correspondence with both the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s
commitment to bring forward legislation, and I note his
recognition of this matter being urgent. None the less, bringing
forward any legislation is likely to take time, so what steps are
the Government taking now, or could they take, to support those
journalists and public bodies who are currently subject to this
highly aggressive and costly legal activity, which, as we have
already heard, is aided and abetted by solicitors?
of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s first point, the
Solicitors Regulation Authority has already acted—and acted
well—by issuing warnings to firms about the practices which
characterise SLAPPs. It has instigated a thematic investigation
of 20 firms thought to have been participating in this activity.
As for the government answer, the Government are intending to
bring forward this legislation, which will bring in caps on costs
and allow for the rapid dismissal of inappropriate or
insubstantial claims to foster a culture of free investigation
and free speech.
(Lab)
My Lords, a conference has just taken place here in London about
anti-SLAPP legislation. It is absolutely right, as the Minister
has said, that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a
statement warning firms and solicitors about their support for
these sorts of actions. This is about money and power. I ask the
Minister whether the abuse of those kinds of injunctions and
legislation will also be used to protect women who are bringing
allegations against powerful men of sexual abuse in the
workplace? The Philip Green case is an example of where the
Telegraph was injuncted over five accusations, which were
eventually exposed, and he then withdrew his claim against the
women. These actions have been used against women too, so will
the Government include women, and the abuse of the legal process
by the powerful to silence them, in this?
of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, it is the privilege of the legal profession to act for
the weak against the powerful. On the specific point which the
noble Baroness raises, I will write to her. I can assure her and
the rest of the House that the provisions against SLAPPs are
intended to be drawn widely. She brings forward the important
question of whether there is an imbalance against women in the
steps being taken in this abusive process. I am grateful to her
and will correspond with her.
(CB)
My Lords, awaiting a suitable legislative vehicle is an ancient
excuse—or possibly reason—for not legislating, but, with respect,
I am a little sceptical about the Minister’s assertion that
inserting these provisions in an economic crime measure would, as
it were, narrow them. Putting these provisions in a Bill which is
largely about a different subject does not, of itself, narrow
them; the key thing is how those provisions themselves are
drafted.
of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite correct, and of course I defer to his
extensive experience in this area. None the less, I submit that
it is of fundamental importance that legislation is brought
appropriately and in a manner which is workable. The Government
are aware of attempts to bring in anti-SLAPP legislation in other
jurisdictions, which have in fact been counterproductive and have
served the interests of the people who would use this insidious
means of stifling free speech and free investigation. The
Government must take steps which work.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that there are many of us who are really
buying this defence from the Minister today, but I can confirm
that these Benches would be very happy to work with the
Government to find the time and the appropriate vehicle to
achieve the ends that we all want to see. We are all concerned
about transparency and trust in politics. Therefore, will the
Minister please inform the House, first, of how many donors to
the Conservative Party have made use of strategic lawsuits
against public participation, and, secondly, of the total amount
donated by these individuals?
of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her indication
of her preparedness to work on a matter which I think is a
concern for the whole House. I am also grateful to her for her
ready acknowledgment that these concerns are shared across the
entire spectrum of British politics. As to her specific question,
I will not comment on individual cases, and nor will noble Lords
consider it appropriate for me to do so.
(LD)
My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships’ House doubts the
sincerity of the Minister when he says he wants to get this
legislation done, but he knows that there is a big queue of
legislation trying to get through both Houses. One way of
ensuring this happens quickly and efficiently when the slot comes
is to publish a draft Bill, have some pre-legislative scrutiny,
and get it in line and agreed before we actually get that slot to
legislate.
of Dirleton (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point and can tell him that one of the
campaigning organisations which has been doing magnificent work
in this field has prepared a model law which will be scrutinised
not only by the Government but, in due course, by parliamentary
draftsmen to see how far that can assist the process of bringing
something timeously on to the statute book.
