Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to prevent ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 was a positive and significant step forward in tackling SLAPPs relating to economic crime. The Government are now carefully considering options to tackle SLAPPs comprehensively. I know that the noble Baroness has a long-standing interest in this area, and I assure her that the Government are taking the matter very seriously and are establishing working parties, working at pace to try to address this issue.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

First, I welcome the noble Lord to his new appointment. It is very important for us to understand that SLAPPs are related not just to economic crime. SLAPPs are illegitimate and aggressive lawfare, used by all kinds of the rich and powerful to silence politicians, journalists and public bodies. They are an abuse of our legal system, and they are a threat to press freedom. Before Dissolution, we were very close to outlawing SLAPPs in their entirety, through the then Government supporting a Labour MP’s Private Member’s Bill. Would the Minister ensure that his Government supported another Private Member’s Bill, if another MP was to bring forward a revised version that incorporated all the amendments and agreements reached with the previous Government before the general election? If not, could he commit to the Government bringing forward their own legislation in this first Session of Parliament to outlaw SLAPPs comprehensively?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the first point that the noble Baroness made. It is not just about economic crime, and that is one of the reasons why we want to have a wider review of potential SLAPPs legislation coming forward. I am not in a position to make the commitment that the noble Baroness has asked for around when any legislation might come forward, but I reassure her that we are taking this matter very seriously. On the Private Member’s Bill that fell at Dissolution, we support the principle behind it. However, we believe that there are outstanding questions that need to be properly balanced. That is to prevent the abuse of the process of SLAPPs, about which the noble Baroness spoke, but we also need to protect access to justice for legitimate claims. It is that balance that needs to be fully worked through. There were live discussions with important stakeholders—for example, the Law Society—at the time of the previous Private Member’s Bill. We have every intention of continuing those discussions as we review any potential legislation.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to open by addressing the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. To summarise what she said, one can have a strategy only when one has people’s trust, and this Bill is about stopping the boats; I think that was the gist of her argument. My argument, and the other argument I have heard in this debate, is that even if this Bill achieves its end completely, the most reverend Primate’s amendment would still be appropriate because we still need a strategy as the situation develops over the next 10 years. I think that addresses the point the noble Baroness made.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

As the noble Lord has referenced what I said, if I may, I shall respond to that point. What we have to understand is that people question our motives now because we have too many times behaved in such a way as to suggest that we do not want to take seriously what they are voting for.

Charities Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Thursday 18th November 2021 Other Business

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. From reading the Member’s explanatory statement, it seems that the objective of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is to avoid the clock being reset every 60 days. Nevertheless, I will draw the noble Baroness’s question to the noble and learned Lord’s attention so that he can respond to her.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Sorry, my point was this: what would happen if the Attorney-General responded during the 60-day period with an acknowledgement that the clock would not start again at that point? This is not about getting to the end of the 60 days but about continuing to restart the clock during those 60 days.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I understand her point: she does not want a “never-ending prevarication”, to use her words. I will draw her question to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so that he can respond to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in supplemental written evidence, Professor Nicholas Hopkins, the lead Law Commissioner on the Law Commission’s project on technical issues in charity law, pointed to the list of regulated alterations for unincorporated charities under the proposed new Section 280A(7) to the Charities Act 2011, which adds to the list of regulated alterations for companies in Section 198(2) and for CIOs in Section 226(2). CIOs are charitable incorporated organisations. The commission’s decisions under Sections 198 and 226 to give or withhold consent are appealable. The provision of a right of appeal, in respect of the giving or refusal of consent to a decision under new Section 280A(7), would therefore be entirely consistent with the policy of treating unincorporated charities in the same way as companies and charitable incorporated organisations.

Professor Hopkins went on to say, regarding new Section 67A, that a decision of the Charity Commission under the provision is essentially a specific type of new Section 280A resolution. Therefore, if there is provision for an appeal under new Section 280A, it would also be logical to provide an appeal to a decision under new Section 67A. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this amendment. I am assuming I have understood it correctly—do not look at me like that, Lord Ponsonby! If I have, the amendment seeks to introduce a right of appeal to trustees, after they have arrived at a resolution on a decision. Under the proposals from the Law Commission, it requires that they go to the Charity Commission for formal approval or refusal. If I understand it, this amendment perpetuates the appeals process. That is in contrast to the Law Commission’s proposal, which is that, at the point that the approval is sought from the Charity Commission on a decision reached by the trustees, it is final. This introduces an extra level of appeal.

I offer a few thoughts on this because, quite often with smaller charities—we are talking about small amounts of money here—the underlying problem is a dispute between trustees. A lot of the commission’s time can be eaten up by disputes between trustees over quite small matters. The Law Commission was trying to remove that or force trustees, on these modest matters, to arrive at a decision on their own and take responsibility in the way they are required to and not, therefore, to allow an ongoing battle.

My fear is that if this appeal process is brought in, it would lend itself to those trustees who will never ever give up. That is why I caution against the amendment. I understand the intention behind it and it is of course well-intentioned, but it brings with it a burden that it might not have meant to. I counsel against it.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I know that he has waited very patiently all afternoon. It may be of assistance to the House for me to remind noble Lords that, at Bill do now pass, once the Motion has been moved formally, as it just has, it may be opposed and reasoned or delaying amendments to it may be moved. However, in other circumstances it is not normally debated.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I wish to raise a new issue, which came to my attention at the end of last week. I was advised by the Public Bill Office that I should take the slightly unusual step of raising this new issue on this Motion. I also informed the Minister’s office that I intended to do this.

It is the intention of the Bill to adopt the Scottish model for protections for the DNA database, and therefore to find an equivalent to the Scottish sheriff courts in England and Wales. As currently worded, the Bill requires the hearings to be before a district judge from the magistrates’ court. This is too restrictive; all that is necessary is for the application to be made to a magistrates’ court. Whether to put the matter before a district judge or a lay bench of magistrates can then be decided locally. This may be a small point but it is one of principle and practicality.

The point of principle is that lay benches have exactly the same powers as district judges. There is only one exception to that, which is in the matter of extradition. Beyond that, it is a point of principle in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales that lay benches have exactly the same powers as district judges.

The point of practicality is that limiting applications to district judges will mean unnecessary inconvenience to citizens. There will be delay and there may be extra costs. The reason for that is that district judges tend to sit in large cities and may be less readily available than lay benches.

I realise that this matter is being raised at a very late stage. I have given the noble Lord notice of it and I look forward to his response.