Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Max Wilkinson(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing time for it.
All of us in this Chamber are interested in the upkeep of our democracy. As part of that, we must be vigilant at all times. We must always work to construct a democracy that enables those in positions of power to be held to account, and then we must do everything in our power here to protect that system. Without it, we are on a slippery slope to tyranny. With that in mind, we must all be clear about the fact that SLAPPs have absolutely no place in our democracy, and I think all Members are clear about that. SLAPPs are intended to censor, intimidate and silence those who challenge powerful vested interests. SLAPPs burden critics of the rich and powerful with eye-watering legal defence costs. SLAPPs prevent the misdeeds of the rich and powerful from being reported publicly, and in doing so they limit the ability of society to scrutinise people in positions of power. Regardless of their protestations, the people who use SLAPPs know exactly what they are doing.
I came to this place to fight for liberal values, but as Members on both sides of the House have said today, this is an issue that commands consensus across the political spectrum. We have heard representatives from at least six party make basically the same points. My liberal values mean that I have a healthy scepticism of concentrations of power, whether it is state power, private power or, as is so often the case with SLAPPs, the financial power of an individual or a company—which in some cases, as others have said, is unlimited financial power. As a liberal, I feel a strong sense of duty to stand up for the right of all of us to hold those in powerful positions to account. That right is at the very heart of our democracy, and SLAPPs are an affront to our democracy.
We must absolutely secure the rights of critics, journalists and commentators to hold the powerful to account. Failure to do so places the rights of those who already have huge power and money to defend their position, and their corrupt practices and any other wrongdoing, above the importance of free challenge as part of the public debate. Members who have spoken about this subject previously have already said that while SLAPPs are not always applied with the intention to win a case, they are used as a means of deterrence against organisations or individuals who engage in public advocacy or speak out on matters of public concern. Dissent is silenced—including, in so many cases, dissent on the part of investigative journalists—and the impact on our public debate is chilling.
One case that demonstrates the issues raised by these legal processes involves of a story published by Inside Housing. This trade publication conducted an investigation of the conditions being endured by homeless people and asylum seekers who had been placed in an office-to-residential conversion in north London. Journalists witnessed a stain on the ceiling apparently caused by leaking sewage. They also found a broken fire safety door, and damp problems risking the health of the vulnerable people living in the building. People placed in the accommodation were funded by taxpayers’ money. That clear case of public interest should have involved the naming of the landlords and the building, which would have enabled power to be held to account. However, when the journalists from Inside Housing gave those responsible—the landlords—the right of reply, they received a letter from solicitors threatening legal action.
The article stated:
“While Inside Housing would be confident of defending its journalism, the cost and time involved in the legal action would be difficult for an organisation of our size.”
Consequently, a landlord who was offering substandard and potentially dangerous accommodation to vulnerable people, and who was taking taxpayers’ money, was not named. The threat of legal action meant that even the building could not be named. We do not know whether that landlord is still in receipt of public sector contracts, or whether they are still running buildings that are not fit for habitation, and there is no way for us to find out, as their identity was never published because of a SLAPP. That is just one example of power not being held to account for its misdeeds. Other examples of the impact of SLAPPs that have been raised in the Chamber today have been instructive.
A number of publications have been mentioned today, and I want to do something unusual for a politician: offer thanks to Private Eye. It regularly makes brave editorial decisions to give this issue the oxygen of publicity that it deserves, and it names without fear or favour. As a subscriber and a former journalist, I value its contribution. I also pay tribute to other organisations, including those that are part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Other Members have mentioned the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, too.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are calling for a comprehensive anti-SLAPPs law to be passed, and we call on the Government to lay a schedule for when it might happen. We hope that when the legislation is brought forward, it will not be stymied by the inclusion of subjective tests that require the court to infer the state of mind of the complainant. That will merely make the situation more complex, and it will further the ends of those who use SLAPPs. Any legislation must be effective in protecting free speech, whistleblowers and media scrutiny. We cannot allow the chilling effect to continue. We must all be vigilant and, in this Parliament, end SLAPPs to protect our democracy.
