PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation - 21 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before the debate begins, I remind the House of the application of the sub judice rule. It is extremely important that we respect the function of the courts. It is also important that we are able to discuss important matters. In civil cases, which are the subject of this debate, the rule applies only when arrangements for a hearing have been made; for appeals, it applies when an application for leave to appeal has been made. I note that the motion refers to matters that do not reach the courts. In such cases, the sub judice rule does not apply. I remind Members that they should not refer to cases if they are aware that arrangements for a hearing have been made, as the sub judice rule does then apply.

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) on the publication of stories in the public interest; acknowledges that most cases of SLAPPs do not reach the courts, but are blocked or changed at an earlier, unseen stage; further recognises the importance of disclosing suppressed stories under parliamentary privilege in order to highlight the broader impact of legal threats on free speech; further acknowledges efforts made to tackle SLAPPs through the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023; and calls on the Government to introduce comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that provides swift dismissal of such cases, protects those targeted from prohibitive legal costs, and ensures that SLAPP filers face significant financial deterrents.

I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for speedily granting this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who has long campaigned on this issue and worked closely with me to secure today’s debate.

I open this debate by outlining the nature of the problem that we face in our legal system. SLAPPs are considered an abuse of the legal process—an abuse in which the primary objective is to harass, intimidate, and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponents via improper and costly legal intervention.

SLAPPs are just another name for lawfare, legal threats, intimidation or—simply put—bullying, and this form of bullying has been going on for years; however, it is a tool that is available only to those with deep pockets. Too often, wealthy individuals, white-collar criminals, oligarchs and kleptocrats use their financial might to muzzle free speech, launder their own reputation, and prevent journalists, whistleblowers and campaigners from shining a light on corruption or foul play. Those who seek to challenge these powerful individuals face the prospect of bankruptcy if they choose to engage in legal proceedings. In that way, a select few can abuse our legal system to evade scrutiny and stop important information ever reaching the public.

My constituents in South Dorset certainly do not have the means or motive to envisage engaging in such bullying tactics, but it is my constituents, and the public at large, who pay the price. Legal intimidation is routinely used to silence public participation. As a consequence, important investigations that are in the public interest are blocked from ever seeing the light of day. Why are we allowing our legal system to be hijacked in that way? These legal threats effectively stifle debate around a wide range of issues of significant public interest. They often significantly alter or even prevent the publication of information. In doing so, I fear they shield misconduct and conceal wrongdoing in such a way that the powerful individuals behind the legal threats, and those who are hiding from scrutiny, can get away scot-free.

This foul play is simply unacceptable. What matters here is not just the subject matter of the information that has been suppressed but the manner in which journalists, campaigners and whistleblowers have been silenced. In most cases, the stories have been legally challenged long before they ever reach the courts. Through endless aggressive and intimidating legal letters, powerful actors are able to delay, and often halt entirely, the publication of a story. Such bullying tactics can even derail or shut down investigations at an earlier stage, and often result in our news outlets and journalists self-censoring.

In order that the House might better understand the current legal mess in which we find ourselves, I will use parliamentary privilege to describe a number of stories that have become silent stories. I will first talk about one SLAPP case of acute and enduring public interest. Professor Kristian Lasslett, a professor of criminology at Ulster University, wrote an article for openDemocracy raising concerns about a construction project worth around half a billion dollars that was under development in Uzbekistan. His research probed exactly why the project was costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and he raised concerns about the due diligence procedures of Government officials, questioning links between the property developers and a family sanctioned for corruption.

Lasslett’s article focused on the links between the developers in question and a family known as the Guptas, who have been accused of systemic corruption in South Africa—corruption so severe that members of the family were slapped with sanctions by both the United Kingdom and the United States. It is clear to me that the activities of the Guptas are of significant national and international public interest because of their position on those sanctions lists. Lasslett also uncovered documents that seemed to show that the proposal document for the development was substantially plagiarised, raising concerns about both the integrity of the project and the procurement checks performed by the Uzbek Government. In a country that is widely criticised by reputable news outlets and civil society for widespread corruption, this story speaks directly to the challenges that the Uzbek people face in holding their elected officials to account.

Importantly, the company’s ties to the Gupta family raise questions about the provenance of the huge sum of money used to fund the project. The findings may point to attempts by the Guptas, through their associates, to integrate their ill-gotten wealth into the Uzbek economy. The public interest merits of the investigation are, in my view, undeniable, but the story was never published. The information that it contains, linking potential procurement corruption to the looting of billions of dollars from South Africa’s state coffers, was effectively blocked. The Uzbek people were deprived of information that speaks directly to their Government’s propriety in the award of enormous contracts.

The story was silenced in a way that follows a pattern that I am sure is all too familiar to Members present. Lasslett received a legal letter from a boutique law firm on behalf of the developers. The lawyers’ letter provided some meaningful factual information, but tried to obfuscate important issues and outright denied any “relationship, business or otherwise” between the developers and the Gupta family, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Now, openDemocracy routinely faces legal threats, but following the correspondence a decision was made that the benefits of publishing the story would be outweighed by the time and financial expense of facing down a deep-pocketed litigant. The media outlet decided against running the story, despite believing in its credibility and appreciating the public interest in asking questions about a country mired in decades of corruption allegations at the highest level.

When even a highly respected academic with extensive expertise and a reputable news outlet decide to censor themselves following legal intimidation, we can only wonder what other cases of egregious misconduct have been uncovered only then to remain hidden—but we need not wonder for too long. Occasionally, public interest stories threatened with legal action have still found their way into the public domain—for instance, the investigation into the tax arrangements of the former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, which later partly contributed to his dismissal. Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer, researcher and commentator, had been investigating the then Chancellor’s financial ties to the data firm YouGov. There were concerns about whether Zahawi was benefiting from tax codes that he had had a hand in shaping. In a lengthy and detailed thread on Twitter, setting out his evidence, Neidle alleged that Zahawi had avoided almost £4 million of capital gains tax.

In response, Zahawi’s lawyers sent Neidle two letters, which not only asked him to retract his accusation by the end of the day but suggested that it would be a “serious matter” if he published the legal letters. Neidle did not submit to those threats. Instead, he set out his research findings, and the conclusions that he drew, in more detail. Moreover, believing that the assertions of confidentiality were false, and that the letters were rather an attempt to intimidate him, Neidle chose to publish the letters, and drew the public’s attention to the use of legal threats to silence research. After he went public, Neidle reported hearing from many others who had been intimidated in a similar way. He stated:

“Silence is integral to the SLAPP strategy. A small-time blogger says something you don’t like. You get your lawyers to write them a letter warning them off. The blogger deletes their blog, and nobody has any idea what happened”.

It is not just the odd former politician who uses legal threats to avoid scrutiny. Sadly, Britain has become a go-to destination for lawfare tactics. Our courts have become the playground of the super-wealthy. The UK is by far the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs. According to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, around 31% of lawfare cases originate from here. We are almost as frequent a source as the European Union and the United States put together. London is an international hotspot, with lawfare tourists travelling from far and wide to get in on the action. Aside from the powerful individuals and entities directly benefiting from the protection afforded by such threats, sending legal letters is also a lucrative business for the lawyers who write them. The legal professionals who knowingly engage in this abuse of the legal process are the product of a culture in which client choice is based on profit over professional ethics.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is tasked with holding the profession to high standards, is not equipped with the right tools to hold lawyers to account. Of the 71 SLAPPs reported to the SRA over the past two years, 23 cases were closed with no further action, and of the 48 remaining live, only two were ever referred to a disciplinary tribunal. What is more, the financial penalties at the regulator’s disposal fail to match the deep pockets of the individuals and law firms that engage in these tactics. The SRA has a paltry fining power of just £25,000 for traditional law firms, which pales in comparison with the firms’ resources. In effect, the fines are likely priced in by the offending law firms.

At present, we simply do not have a proper deterrent, or the ability to impose real financial penalties on the lawyers and firms that knowingly engage in legal intimidation. Our legal framework also fails the minority of lawfare cases that eventually make it to the courts, meaning that those legal cases cannot be thrown out by a judge at an early stage.

I welcome the measures enacted by the recent Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that ensured that cases of legal intimidation that relate to economic crime can be tackled. However, as we have heard in past debates in both Houses, those measures do not go far enough. We urgently need to update our legal framework to ensure that all SLAPP cases that reach the courts can be thrown out at an early stage if a judge deems it appropriate. Only then can we level the playing field and ensure that those with deep pockets are fairly scrutinised, just like everyone else.

I pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Caerphilly, who brought forward a private Member’s Bill that sought to fill this gap in our legal framework. His Bill was due to come back to the House when the general election was called, so it sadly went no further. We can re-examine much of that Bill as we seek to tackle the lawfare scandal engulfing our country. We urgently need to take seriously the risk that legal threats pose to the health of our public debate. I know the Government will listen to the powerful stories brought to light today and will seek to answer our concerns about the inadequacy of our regulatory and legislative framework. I look forward to hearing from the Government exactly how we can challenge the scourge of lawfare once and for all. We are surrounded by silent stories—it is high time they were heard.

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for obtaining the debate, which is on an important subject. I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, and am delighted to see the vice-chair, the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), attending the debate.

The UK has a proud record of defending and promoting media freedom in this country and across the world. In 2019, the UK established the global Media Freedom Coalition, which now has 51 members. During my time of involvement in the media, which goes back quite a long way, I always paid careful attention to the annual publication of the world press freedom index. I am pleased that the UK’s ranking has risen substantially in recent years. We now stand at No. 23—still some way to go, but nevertheless an improvement. The reason we have improved is that a lot of other countries have gotten considerably worse, so we have risen as a result of their demotion.

The hon. Member for South Dorset is right that the phenomenon of SLAPPs has been a blot on our record for a considerable time. I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for 10 years. In 2009, we carried out an inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. In particular, we saw the phenomenon of libel tourism, which, to some extent, continues to this day.

We heard about, for instance, the case of Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, a US academic who had written the book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It”. The book appeared in the United States; it had no British edition. Twenty-three copies were obtained in the United Kingdom by ordering over the internet. Despite that, a Saudi businessman named in the book took legal action against Dr Ehrenfeld in the UK courts. He was awarded considerable damages on the basis that Dr Ehrenfeld did not defend the action in a court that she saw as having no jurisdiction over the matter. That led to the introduction of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act 2008 by the New York state legislature, which basically said that residents of New York did not have to abide by foreign courts’ judgments in this particular area. Since that time, the situation has much improved and, of course, the Defamation Act 2013 sought to address the specific issue of libel tourism and raised the bar for claimants in libel cases. Nevertheless, there has still been a chilling effect.

We also heard from the author Tom Bower, who was subject to a legal action over a very small reference to Richard Desmond in his book about Conrad Black. Mr Desmond lost the action, but was prepared to pay a huge amount to bring it about. Certainly, it was Mr Bower’s view that he did so to demonstrate that he was willing to spend a large amount even on a small and relatively minor accusation. The result was that Mr Bower’s plans to write a book about Mr Desmond did not proceed because the publishers were too afraid of potential legal action.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset recognised, further measures since the Defamation Act 2013 have been introduced, primarily through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which focused specifically on the issue of SLAPPs around economic crime or allegations. When I returned to the position of Minister responsible for the media—in my second incarnation—we were nevertheless aware that it remained a problem. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had established the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I hope is still in existence. The committee was originally set up to look at the physical threat to journalists and attempts to intimidate them through harassment—sometimes online but occasionally through physical aggression—and a lot of work was done on it. We then agreed that the issue of SLAPPs represented an attempt to prevent media freedom and to close down legitimate public interest journalism, so the committee extended its work to cover SLAPPs.

I remember that we heard from Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”, and Tom Burgis, who wrote “Kleptopia”, both of which revealed corruption, in one case on the part of an ally of President Putin in Russia and, in the other, on the part of some individuals in Kazakhstan. Both were subject to legal action against them personally as well as against their publishers.

Perhaps the most appalling example, which was debated in this House at length, was the discovery that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder and leader of the Wagner Group, had been allowed to circumvent the sanctions placed on him to bring a legal action against the director of Bellingcat, who had rightly identified him as the leader of the Wagner Group. That was a scandal, and I am glad to say that the decision was subsequently reversed. Again, it was interesting that somebody as notorious as that had chosen to bring an action in the UK.

The hon. Member for South Dorset suggested that it is a matter of shame that the UK is seen as the centre for such actions, and I share his concern to some extent. It is also a tribute to the strength and independence of the UK judicial system, which is admired around the world. The reason why so many people wish to pursue actions in the UK courts is normally that they have greater confidence in UK courts than those in many other places. It is right that we should take action where the motivation behind those actions is more to do with preventing legitimate inquiry.

As I say, the DCMS National Committee for the Safety of Journalists established a SLAPPs taskforce in 2023—I think that was in my third incarnation in government with responsibility for the media. The taskforce brought together Departments, such as DCMS and the Ministry of Justice, representatives of campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship, and publishers and journalists, including the News Media Association and the National Union of Journalists. The taskforce was chaired by Janis Makarewich-Hall, the excellent DCMS official. Its initial meeting was attended by the then Secretary of State Lucy Frazer, and I attended as many meetings as I could. That led to a lot of work on trying to understand the prevalence of SLAPPs, producing guidance for journalists, examining the legal ethics and what more might be done—both by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board—to ensure that law firms did not take on cases for which there was no real justification other than an attempt to shut down journalism, and raising awareness. Four meetings of that taskforce took place—I do not know whether it still exists, but I very much hope that it does. I would be interested to hear what work has continued under this Government, as a lot was done under the last.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset rightly recognised, Wayne David introduced a Bill that was prepared in government to tackle the issue of SLAPPs, and it was amended during its passage to strengthen it. It reached the House of Lords but it did not reach the statute book because of the general election. A lot of work has been done, and I hope that we can build on and learn from it.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has sent a number of cases as examples of SLAPPs—the hon. Gentleman quoted one of them. I do not want to use privilege to cite individual cases, but there is concern that it is happening in a number of areas, and we need to address it through legislative change. At the same time, it is important to recognise that individuals have a right to defend themselves against untrue and unfounded accusations. That is as much a fundamental part of liberty as freedom of speech. Not all cases claimed to be SLAPPs are SLAPPs, in my view—particularly those in which the claimant has subsequently proved successful in the action that they have brought in the court. That almost disproves the claim that it was a SLAPP to begin with, so we do need to be careful.

I have also had correspondence from the Society of Media Lawyers, which suggested that there is a lack of empirical evidence and that campaigners ignore existing legal and regulatory tools. It also suggested that this is an area that the Law Commission should perhaps review, but I have a concern that such a review is a way of pushing the matter into very long grass and would unnecessarily delay measures on which a great deal of work has already been done. Rather than doing that, I urge the Government to consider the work done in DCMS and the Ministry of Justice, and in particular the debates that took place during the Committee stage of Wayne David’s private Member’s Bill, and to introduce legislation to deal with the chilling of media freedom in the UK, which I absolutely recognise is a legitimate concern.

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his passionate and eloquent speech, and for securing the debate.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, are essentially a misuse of the legal system through threatening claims that are brought to stifle lawful scrutiny and publication. They have been used to silence public participation by and suppress information from activists, environmental campaigners, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers, victims of sexual assault and even people just posting negative product reviews online. The list of journalists who have faced SLAPPs simply for reporting in the public interest grows by the day. Of course, receiving a SLAPP causes immense mental and financial concern and distress. It is clear that most people targeted by SLAPPs cannot afford the legal costs of defending the claims against them.

Without effective anti-SLAPP legislation, everyone in the UK remains at risk if they choose to speak out on matters of public interest. That is why having an effective anti-SLAPPs regime in the UK is so important. Failure to have one essentially undermines democracy. It is certainly welcome that the Government are pushing for greater transparency in public life through enhanced reporting, updates to the ministerial code and changes to Government contract awards, but focusing solely on the public sector is not enough. The consequences of focusing only on the public sector could be chilling: at one end of the spectrum, the public may be denied knowledge about issues of public interest, and at the other end, the exposure of corruption and other forms of wrongdoing in many areas will be limited. That would continue to leave the most powerful with the ability to manipulate the legal system to conceal wrongdoing across the UK.

I agree with what others have said about the need for anti-SLAPP laws to balance access to justice for those who have a right to defend themselves, but in reality, SLAPP victims—journalists, campaigners and abuse survivors—often lack the resources to defend themselves against aggressive legal tactics designed to intimidate them and suppress the publication of their information. That is why a comprehensive anti-SLAPP Bill—which would balance access to justice for those who have a right to defend themselves against the pernicious use of SLAPPs—would help to ensure that justice is accessible to all, not just the wealthiest. It is important to stress that the EU passed anti-SLAPP directives earlier this year.

I have a few questions that the Minister can perhaps answer in her closing speech. I know that she welcomes a lot of what has been said today. The Justice Minister in the Lords said that the Government are undertaking a review of SLAPPs policy. What are the parameters of that review, and how can parliamentarians and civil society engage with it? Do the Government recognise that, although claimant lawyers of course have expertise that is useful to this debate, we should be sceptical about letting those who have a direct financial interest, and who deny the very existence of SLAPPs, have such a substantial influence on policy-making? Do the Government agree that we will have a hope of stamping out SLAPPs only with a comprehensive and robust anti-SLAPP Bill, and is there a realistic prospect of one appearing in the next King’s Speech or of another legislative vehicle being used in this Parliament? Is it not the case that, far from restricting access to justice, anti-SLAPP legislation will ensure that justice is accessible to all, not just to a privileged few who seek to manipulate the UK legal system?

SLAPPs essentially undermine the very nature of the UK legal system and the freedom of speech and expression that our country is so proud of. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns and those of colleagues in closing the debate.

In an ideal world, there would be a limitless supply of lawyers who would provide their services to victims and defendants alike, free of charge. Then, the issue of SLAPPs could never arise. We are not talking here about trying to restrict the right of individuals to seek the protection of a court and clear their name of defamatory claims about them.

If that was what we were seeking, I would be something of a hypocrite, because 30 years ago, I had to pursue such a libel action against an impecunious magazine that thought it could get away with saying anything about public figures, no matter how baseless, because it had no assets, so if someone pursued a libel action against it and won, they could never recover the tens of thousands of pounds in costs. That is when the boot is on the other foot: a person who has no assets therefore uses the costs of lawyers against the person they wish to defame.

However, what has happened in more recent times, particularly since the demise of that magazine, because there were other ways of dealing with it, is precisely what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) said in his excellent introduction was an abuse of the legal process—and in particular of the huge costs that apply to hiring lawyers to defend oneself—by what I believe he described as a very small number of very rich people. The solution to this type of problem is therefore for the courts to be able to deal with it at such an early stage that, even though some costs will be unavoidable, the huge threat of unbearable costs will be removed, because a worthless libel claim against an investigative reporter whose story is well founded will be thrown out beforethe vast bulk of the expense can be incurred.

Some hon. Members who were here in the previous Parliament may remember that we had a brief debate on 20 January 2022 dealing with the question of lawfare. I made a couple of interventions on behalf of a former Member of the House, Charlotte Leslie, who faced what was certainly a SLAPP as a result of her not even having published anything, but having privately contacted a number of people, including me, given my then position as the Chair of a Committee that she regarded as relevant to her concerns. She wrote to us to try to do due diligence on an individual who proposed getting involved and investing money in an organisation by which she was employed. Fortunately, in the end, the case failed utterly in court, but only after she had been put through a nightmarish ordeal. I pay tribute to her resilience in coming through that ordeal.

We are of course particularly concerned about vulnerable individuals, but sometimes even large organisations can be subject to the SLAPP technique. If hon. Members look on the internet, they will see that on 12 January this year—on the BBC website, no less—a story headed, “Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower” begins:

“The BBC can reveal that in the period leading up to the broadcast of Trouble at the Post Office, the 2015 Panorama programme featuring the whistleblower testimony:

Experts interviewed by the BBC were sent intimidating letters by Post Office lawyers about their participation in the programme

Senior Post Office managers briefed the BBC that neither their staff nor Fujitsu—the company which built and maintained the Horizon system—could remotely access sub-postmasters’ accounts, even though Post Office directors had been warned four years earlier that such remote access was possible

Lawyers for the Post Office sent letters threatening to sue Panorama and the company's public relations boss Mark Davies escalated complaints to ever more senior BBC managers”.

The article also states:

“The Post Office’s false claims did not stop the programme, but they did cause the BBC to delay the broadcast by several weeks.”

As we all know, the BBC had the resources to resist a major legal action had one ensued.

Only three days earlier than that article on the scandal, there was an article on 9 January 2024 on the website of the Press Gazette, which is the industry-representative body. It commented on the way in which the ITV drama about the Post Office scandal had brought to a wider audience the shocking story of the hundreds of postmasters who were wrongly prosecuted and, indeed, the four who committed suicide as a result.

The article is headed, “Attention to Post Office Horizon IT scandal follows 14 years of dogged journalism”. It rightly pays tribute to the freelance reporter Nick Wallis, who wrote the famous book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, and to two other reporters, Rebecca Thomson and Karl Flinders, who both wrote numerous articles for a much smaller enterprise, a journal called Computer Weekly. In fact, it can be said that the first investigation into Horizon, which was published in 2009, was carried out by Computer Weekly after a year-long investigation by Rebecca Thomson. The investigations editor of Computer Weekly, Bill Goodwin, is quoted as saying that the magazine persisted despite “bullying letters” from the Post Office demanding to know its sources. He said:

“We ignored them. Reaction was muted when the story first appeared but it initiated a slow-burn chain of events that lead to the uncovering of a scandal of enormous proportions.”

I am very grateful to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has already been mentioned in this debate, for providing a little more detail on what Computer Weekly faced. It has supplied me with some further embellishment, as it were, of what I have already recounted. It tells me that the general counsel for the Post Office sent threatening legal letters to Computer Weekly and that the trade magazine’s brave campaign, which continued regardless of the threats, often left it as a lone voice, with other outlets seemingly very reluctant to pick up on the important reporting with which it persisted. One legal letter from 2015 shared with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism threatened Computer Weekly over an article that said the Post Office closed a working group responsible for looking into claims against the Horizon software. The general counsel claimed that the article included a “significant number of inaccuracies” and “damaging errors” and argued that the reporters had acted improperly, stating:

“We are most concerned that Computer Weekly chose to publish this highly damaging article without taking the proper steps to verify the information.”

The letter acknowledged that Computer Weekly had amended its article to include Post Office comments, yet it persisted with the threats:

“You should not underestimate the seriousness with which the Post Office views the publication of such damaging and inaccurate allegations. The steps taken by you in response to this letter may well influence Post Office’s decision as to any further steps it may take to protect its reputation.”

It has now emerged that the Post Office took multiple aggressive actions to shut down the story about its failures over prosecutions that were sparked by the faulty Horizon software. The scandal only really spread into the mainstream press after the breakthrough moment in 2019 when Alan Bates and 554 litigants took a civil case against the Post Office to the High Court, which they won a couple of years later. Even then, as was said earlier, the full story was not widely known until the 2024 ITV drama was broadcast.

In response to what the Bureau of Investigative Journalism stated, the Post Office now sings a welcome different tune. It says that the organisation is committed to supporting the ongoing public inquiry and that it is fair and right for the Post Office to be held to account by journalists. It says:

“The approach of the Post Office today regarding communications is based on the knowledge that we must apologise sincerely, learn from the past, be transparent with stakeholders, and support justice and redress for those who have been impacted.”

It also says that it is actively exploring additional ways to strengthen transparency.

That is all well and good, after the Post Office fought so hard to cover up what had happened and close down the story of the scandal, but I will close as I began by saying that any SLAPP legislation is not meant to give anybody carte blanche to say anything they like on the basis of no evidence—to smear, belittle or denigrate people simply because they wish to target them for whatever reason. The purpose of such legislation is to stop people who know perfectly well that the accusations against them are well founded, as the Post Office knew, but who nevertheless persist in abusing the legal system because of the horrendous threat of costs that will drive people to bankruptcy or to surrendering in the face of possible bankruptcy before the issue ever gets resolved in court. Central to any SLAPP legislation must be a simplification process that ensures that a worthless case—a case with no evidence; a case that is truly a SLAPP—is thrown out at the earliest possible opportunity before unbearable costs are incurred.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. It is good to see some newly elected Members taking up this issue—I include in that my neighbour and hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—as well as some of those who have been around for a while and trying to champion it. I am sure the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will not mind my describing them in that way. We are missing the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) today, but I pay tribute to all the work they have done on this issue over many years.

I am not going to speak for very long, because I am not going to say anything that I have not said before. I think I replied for the Opposition in the January 2022 debate that the right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to, and the Justice Select Committee held an evidence session in May of that year under its previous Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC. The transcript of that session is very interesting to read, but what struck me is how little has actually been achieved, even though the issue has been debated many times. It is not true that nothing has been achieved since then, however. As has already been mentioned, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 includes some measures to tackle SLAPPs, but relating specifically to economic crime; I think there is general recognition that that does not go further.

We have also heard about the Bill introduced by Sir Wayne David, which sadly did not become law because of the general election. Even that Bill took quite a lot of negotiation in order to get any meaningful provisions into it, against some resistance from the previous Government. That is not a terribly good record over the past few years, given the importance that many Members attach to this issue, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about this Government’s future legislative intent when she replies to today’s debate. The Justice Committee may well want to return to this issue at some point, but for today’s purposes, I am speaking on my own behalf and repeating arguments that have been around for some time.

There are many reasons to be concerned about SLAPPs. One of them is highlighted in the long title of today’s debate—freedom of speech—but as has already been mentioned, SLAPPs can also have a pernicious effect on the justice system, to which I particularly want to speak. SLAPPs is now the accepted terminology, but they were previously called lawfare. That term was very appropriate, because it is continuation of litigation by inappropriate means. It is clearly bad for victims, but it is also bad for the justice system. It allows bad actors to take action in the courts, and although we have a very robust judiciary in this country who are quite capable of making their views felt, without recognition of SLAPPs in law, under the rules of court and given the clearly stated aims of all parties, particularly the Government, SLAPPs are going to continue.

SLAPPs are typically brought by people of unlimited resources to deter publication. That is why, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and others have pointed out, most SLAPPs never reach the litigation stage. They are intended to have a chilling effect, not only on the specific, immediate target but on the wider press and media, particularly those who do not have deep pockets. They can tie individual journalists and publications in knots for years and can subject them to a huge amount of stress and risk. We can think of examples going back to McLibel, what happened to Tom Burgis and to Catherine Belton, or indeed—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—the appalling way that Charlotte Leslie was treated. SLAPPs are used to protect people such as Mohammed al-Fayed who wilfully and knowingly use the court system to hide their misdeeds. It is undoubtedly true that such people introduce vexatious litigation into the courts, distorting their function and operation and misdirecting the purpose of justice.

If Members think I am exaggerating, whether or not it is a SLAPP in the classic definition, the action taken by ENRC against the Serious Fraud Office—which effectively has turned the hunter into the hunted—is an example of how even the institutions of state can become the victims of SLAPPs. This is a very insidious trend within litigation. It may not be widespread, but it has a hidden hinterland, and despite the best efforts of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—which I have mentioned—and Sir Wayne David in his Bill, we now really need the Government to take up this cause.

There is one other issue I want to deal with—one that I always mention, and that will not find favour with some Members of this House. If we are serious about dealing with attempts to use financial strong-arming to prevent justice taking its course, we also have to think about our attitude to the Leveson reforms. The aim of Leveson was to protect small publishers against litigants with deep pockets, but also individual citizens who have been misrepresented by large media organisations and are unable to take action, or are discouraged from doing so.

The victims of intrusion and vilification, particularly by the tabloids, also deserve the protection of the law. Leveson provided a solution through low-cost arbitration that would be fair for both sides—that protected publishers in the same way as individuals. It was not a form of state regulation, but a method of independent and fair determination of issues that restored equality of arms. If it is right for us to legislate on SLAPPs and stop the pernicious influence of the oligarchs of the steppes, we should also prevent the misuse of the courts by the oligarchs of Fleet Street.

I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am an unpaid trustee of the Index on Censorship and write a weekly column for The Daily Telegraph.

We are all here for this debate because we share a belief that free speech is the bedrock on which free societies are built. The right to voice one’s conscience, criticise those in positions of power, share inconvenient truths and promote new knowledge allows us to protect and enjoy the other freedoms that define our way of life. However, we find ourselves in a crisis of free speech in this country, and this debate is an opportune moment to consider just one part of that crisis by examining how the wealthy can use and abuse the court system through the SLAPPs process, which many hon. Members have already described.

I am no libertarian, and all good conservatives know that liberty cannot endure without order. That is why I am not a free speech absolutist. There must always be a balance in the law to ensure that free speech does not allow defamation or the incitement of violence, to name two examples. However, with SLAPPs the law has definitely become unbalanced, creating a chilling effect on free speech that gives a powerful advantage to the wealthy and creates lucrative opportunities for claimant lawyers.

This is not just a serious problem for journalists and news organisations. SLAPPs have been deployed by those with deep pockets against company employees, non-governmental organisations, campaign activists, survivors of abuse and people from many walks of life. London continues to be known as a global libel hotspot. Nearly a quarter of cross-border SLAPP cases between 2010 and 2021 were in the UK, and a record number of 14 SLAPP cases were filed in England and Wales in 2021. The lack of comprehensive data on SLAPP cases—many are settled out of court, so this can be difficult to measure—has been exploited by claimant lawyers, who argue that there is no such problem. However, the evidence we have, and we have heard such evidence from Members on both sides of the House, is incredibly strong.

SLAPPs have been used to shut down research publications and investigations before they can even see the light of day. There are journalists who have been able to expose the use of SLAPPs covering high profile cases, sometimes including powerful actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referred to the Russian businessmen who attempted to sue Tom Burgis over the publication of his book, “Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World”. HarperCollins helped to shine a light on SLAPPs, but the issue has not gone away since then.

Many others in this debate have shared similar stories about the use of lawfare to control what can and cannot be said in public. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised the case involving a SLAPP against Charlotte Leslie, the former Member for Bristol North West, deployed by Mohamed Amersi. After carrying out due diligence on Mr Amersi and sharing her findings with senior members of the Conservative Middle East Council, Charlotte was subject to allegations regarding data protection in 2021 and defamation in 2022. She had serious and legitimate concerns about Mr Amersi taking over CMEC, and those concerns were suppressed by his abuse of the court system.

Last year, after a great deal of time and money, and no little stress for Charlotte and her family, the Court ruled that “no serious harm” had been done to Mr Amersi’s reputation and that both allegations were unnecessary, and they were struck down. However, it was only the good fortune that CMEC had insurance that allowed Charlotte to continue that fight her case, against a wealthy businessman intent on using his power to damage her and to take over her institution, that she was able to win. We should remember the consequences had Mr Amersi succeeded in controlling an important institution in our politics that seeks to shape the foreign policy of this country.

Most victims of SLAPPs are not able to resist as Charlotte did because they are so often outmatched by people with superior financial and legal resources. News organisations can sometimes fight their own corner, but local and regional media do not have the same option. This is very worrying and concerning for the health and independence of the press at all levels. The status quo also benefits claimant lawyers, who collect enormous fees for litigating on behalf of the powerful. As a result, journalists, news organisations and others too often no longer publish information that could serve the public interest and hold the powerful to account.

SLAPPs turn the principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head, and the existing system gives added leverage to people who already enjoy the advantages of their wealth and knowledge of how best to exploit the court system. This power imbalance makes it very important for us to know the true cost to the taxpayer of taking these cases through the court system. A public service should not be manipulated by the powerful to serve their own interests.

The UK is not alone in grappling with the issue of SLAPPs. As has been noted, the European Union has introduced its own anti-SLAPPs directive that, though not perfect, does show a clear change in direction. The Council of Europe, of which the UK is a member, has also called for more comprehensive anti-SLAPPs legislation at the national level. Its report, to which the previous Government contributed, explicitly states that SLAPPs

“impede individual rights to expression whilst undermining the free exchange of ideas and information essential in a pluralistic society.”

In Canada, British Columbia and Ontario have successfully implemented and tested anti-SLAPPs legislation.

It is with good reason that the UK is known for its fair and impartial judiciary, free speech protections, free media and democratic governance—one of our country’s great contributions to civilisation—but that should not cause us to be in any way complacent. We must remain vigilant in the defence of our freedoms.

The previous Government made some welcome progress in this area. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) said, anti-SLAPP measures were enshrined in law under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. While that legislation is narrow in scope and could have been tougher, it still recognised that we have a problem with SLAPPs, and we should continue this conversation and find a comprehensive solution. As has also been said, towards the end of the last Parliament, Sir Wayne David, with Government support, introduced a private Member’s Bill, which would have given the House an opportunity to discuss practical legislation. The Ministry of Justice launched non-legislative initiatives on training and guidance to help people to fight SLAPPs in the courts, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport established a SLAPPs taskforce.

This is a challenge that commands the attention and support of Members across the political spectrum, and this debate allows us all to put our party colours to one side and to speak up for a vital freedom and for the common good. I was pleased to her the Prime Minister’s comments in October, when he recognised that this is a problem. He said that SLAPPs are used

“to intimidate journalists away from their pursuit of the public interest.”

He also said:

“Such behaviour is intolerable”.

I agree with those comments.

The Prime Minister promised to act, and it would be welcome, when the Minister speaks, if she confirmed when proposals will be put before the House. I note that there was no mention of press freedom in the King’s Speech, and the MOJ and DCMS initiatives have been put on hold. I know they are a new Government and I am not trying to make a party political attack, but it would be good to know the timing of such initiatives, because it would be a shame to see the progress made during the last Parliament undone.

I join other Members from different parties in calling for a comprehensive anti-SLAPPs Bill. I would like to see the parameters for the review of current policy and Ministers starting to work on primary legislation as soon as possible. Equal access to justice and free speech must be the key principles underpinning the Government’s approach. The longer we delay, the more lives will be ruined, and we will continue to see free and open debate limited in the interests of the wealthy and at the expense of the public. SLAPPs will just feed into a broader intimidatory culture that deploys hacking, surveillance, smears, bullying and threats to silence critics during an age already grappling with problems of misinformation and disinformation.

I said at the start of my speech that SLAPPs are just one part of a wider crisis of free speech in the UK and across the world. I imagine we all have stories of our own. I experienced it myself after I wrote a column in The Daily Telegraph following the murder of Sir David Amess. There was a concerted attempt by some organisations, which I understand have Islamist links, to have me thrown off the organising committee of the Commonwealth games that took place in Birmingham in 2022. Newspapers routinely receive aggressive letters from firms such as Carter-Ruck when they write about some of the same organisations with Islamist and extremist connections.

A censorious culture driven by social media and increasingly ideological dogma is starting to police our language. We have seen public institutions bent to obey the whims of online activists. The latest figures show that police forces recorded as many as almost 12,000 non-crime hate incidents in the year to June 2024. It has been shocking to hear reports of police officers knocking on the doors of journalists to investigate the language they have used in tweets, such as in the case of Allison Pearson. Essex police—the force that turned up on her doorstep—has failed to investigate or arrest people who are undoubtedly using language that should be investigated for incitement to violence, such as Shaykh Shams Ad-Duha Muhammad, who called for Allah to

“destroy the Zionists”

and to

“grant us victory over the disbelieving people”.

I think we know whom he means by the Zionists. The Metropolitan police has been unwilling to arrest protesters who have chanted for jihad and have intimated British Jews on the streets of London over the last year or so.

All this occurs while free speech is under sustained assault by authoritarian regimes in other countries. Just two days ago, a Hong Kong court used the national security law to convict pro-democracy activists for subversion. The Women, Life, Freedom movement in Iran has been brutally suppressed through threats, beatings, imprisonment and executions. Russia has continued its crackdown on free speech, arresting US journalist Evan Gershkovich on bogus espionage charges. We heard many other such examples at the freedom of expression awards last night organised by Index on Censorship. These authoritarian regimes use propaganda and media manipulation to hide their actions, but we must not turn a blind eye. It is critical that we do not allow free speech to be weakened in our country.

As I said at the start of my contribution, I am not a free speech absolutist, and I doubt many Members here today really are either. As with any freedom, there must be limits to ensure that the common good and public safety are served, but we are now at risk of destroying the foundation upon which all our freedoms rest. From SLAPPs to non-crime hate incidents, a bureaucratic legal quagmire threatens to consume our freedoms, to the detriment of our national stability and cohesion. I will always stand with colleagues in this House to defend the right to free speech, and I hope the Government will work constructively with Members of all parties in this House to resolve the broader crisis in our political culture.

Democratic and press freedoms are fundamental to our rights. That is why many of us have been campaigning on changing the law to provide meaningful protection against SLAPPs, and I welcome the opportunity the debate offers in that regard. As the re-elected chair of the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse, I want to particularly raise the need to tackle the ability of abusers to weaponise litigation.

I am obliged to highlight a personal interest given my own experiences of lawfare being use against myself. The House will be aware that I was completely cleared and vindicated in Snaresbrook Crown court after what I and many in my constituency and around the UK viewed as vexatious litigation pursued with the purpose of shutting down my public participation as a democratically elected Member of Parliament and as a survivor of domestic abuse. In the end, the local council, where my ex-husband was a councillor at the time, spent more money trying to pursue me in the courts than the amount it alleged it was trying to recoup. I want to place on record that I have never received any recognition, never mind an apology, from the institution and people who did this to me.

Still to this day, I am seeking answers so that something like this cannot ever happen again, because the use of lawfare by abusers to pursue a current or ex-partner is increasingly coming to light. The most common proceedings we see are brought by those accused of sexual and/or domestic violence launching vexatious cases in relation to defamation, libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and press injunctions. However, they can also include the family courts, the criminal justice system and other areas of law. The purpose of these proceedings is to silence, intimidate, discredit and further disempower survivors.

Likewise, there is no doubt in my mind that there is clearly a bias in and pressure on media outlets when reporting on issues relating to domestic abuse and violence against women. To explain what I mean, I need to update the House on the extraordinary situation I continue to face. After I survived a full term as a Member of Parliament facing onslaught after onslaught, my ex-husband was finally expelled from the Labour party for his treatment of me at the beginning of this year. However, that did not stop the relentless attempts to unjustly remove me as an MP by a clique of his associates still in the Labour party. Having survived this, I then had the shock that he then stood against me at the general election as an independent with the stated aim of exposing “who I really was” and getting even with me. On election day itself, my security situation was so serious that I was literally bundled away from polling stations due to the risks. I remember the car he was in driving well over the speed limit past the polling station I was at, and my security support took it on themselves to increase their resources, all the way to the election count and even inside the building.

I am still reeling from what happened, and I am enormously proud of the positive and vibrant campaign I ran despite this situation. I am so moved that the people of Poplar and Limehouse have stood by me. But they are struck, as am I, by how lawfare has been used, albeit unsuccessfully, against me and how my ex-husband’s right to pursue me, including publicly slandering me, seems to be protected. When I continued to raise this with a range of authorities and people, seeking support, I was repeatedly given the impression that very little could be done. And where has this been reported in the media? It is not as though the safety of Members of Parliament has not been of public interest or indeed newsworthy lately. What is it about me that evokes this deadly silence in this regard, and why are women’s experiences of domestic abuse treated so differently?

It might seem strange to some that I raise this while advocating for press freedom, but this is clearly not press freedom, and of course it is obviously connected to the fear of litigious perpetrators and the law around defamation. Indeed, the National Union of Journalists is warning of the current threats to press freedom posed by the use of litigation or indeed the threat of litigation. I have even had contact with journalists from mainstream outlets investigating my situation, who I understand in some cases have even drafted full articles which were then blocked by their editors on what was referred to as “legal grounds.” Yet invariably no such care is taken when it comes to printing smears about me; and what a strange world we live in that accusing me of lying, and indeed all sorts, is not viewed as a damage to my reputation.

Further to this, the growing trend of journalists being targeted directly when receiving threats of legal action instils fear that deters any future journalistic content on an issue. Yet the free expression of survivors sharing their truth is, in my view a matter of public interest that outweighs the private interests and right to reputation of an abuser.

Preventing the misuse of litigation and the use of the law to silence survivors of domestic abuse and violence is central to freedom of speech. The United Nations and others have warned about gendered censorship taking place around the world and that there is clearly imbalance in the system between “his” right to reputation and, usually, “her” right to free speech. As Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida, authors of “How Many More Women?”, succinctly put it:

“Legal change is possible. And fight back we must. Because if we don’t, how many more women will be silenced?”

It is vital that legislators consider this, so that certain types of public interest speech are not privileged over others. It is also vital if we aim to have a future free from perpetrators being able to abuse the courts and pursue litigation in this way, because supporting survivors in speaking out is crucial in envisaging a world where no one is forced to endure domestic abuse. Because at the core of the debate around SLAPPs are questions of democracy, accountability and justice. As I have set out in terms of my own situation, SLAPPs are being used to silence public participation and suppress the provision of information by activists, environmental campaigners, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers, and even people posting negative product reviews online.

I would like to highlight another example raised with me by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Freelance journalist Tom Latchem was investigating a foster care home run by reality show star Ampika Pickston, the fiancée of billionaire owner of West Ham United, David Sullivan. Mr Latchem published a story with the outlet Byline Times about the home having its licence suspended by Ofsted due to reported serious safeguarding failings. I understand, however, that Mr Latchem believes he has been prevented from further reporting on the care home. He wanted in particular to be able to investigate an incident in which Ms Pickston allegedly took a child from the care home to her private residence, but was sent a letter by lawyers for Ms Pickston warning in essence that they would review any published material and if they considered anything to be defamatory or libellous they

“will advise our client to sue both the newspaper and any individual author or journalist for libel, seeking damages and costs”.

I am told that Ms Pickston’s lawyers said their communications with the journalist were “courteous and cordial” and did not prevent him from any reporting. Nevertheless, it will surely be understandable to the House that Mr Latchem feels he cannot afford to face down someone with such resources. It is obvious who loses out if accountability and transparency on the treatment of children in care homes are thwarted.

In conclusion, it is clear that we need a concrete action plan to stop abusive lawsuits silencing those who speak out in the public interest. We only have a hope of stamping out SLAPPs with a comprehensive and robust anti-SLAPP Bill. As such, it would be helpful to hear from the Government whether there is a realistic prospect of that appearing in the next King’s Speech or any other legislative vehicle in this Parliament.

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part so far. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who laid out precisely how abusers can benefit from abusive lawsuits, which continue, with a growing impact in silencing those who speak out in the public interest. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) for mentioning the McLibel case, which is a classic of the genre of using legal might against the smallest and most local publishing operations in an effort to stop grassroots public-spirited campaigning.

As the Anti-SLAPP Coalition says:

“Without a dedicated anti-SLAPP law, everyone in the UK remains at risk if they choose to speak out on matters of public interest, undermining the democratic health of our society.”

The case I will talk about today is that of Ben Jenkins, a citizen who made critical posts and comments in various forums about GreenSquareAccord, the housing provider with which he co-owns his home as a shared owner. In my work as an elected representative—as a local councillor, as a London Assembly Member, and now as an MP— I have often met, worked with and supported people like Ben. These campaigners speak up when their housing provider fails, when their complaints disappear into the system and when their attempts to work with others to show the patterns in the impacts on fellow residents are delegitimised.

We have all seen how those dynamics worked around the disaster at Grenfell and how the residents were treated before the fire in relation to the ongoing issues in the building. Such situations are all too common, and it is exactly the kinds of concerns that local grassroots campaigners bring out that the big, powerful companies and organisations that operate these homes most want to suppress. We can see why the dynamic of SLAPPs comes into play in such cases.

Ben Jenkins has faced a series of serious legal threats from his social housing provider. He spoke out about the company’s inadequate response to residents’ concerns, including drug taking in corridors, poor quality repairs and safety risks. It is very much in the public interest for Ben to speak out freely on such issues, because safety in housing completely depends upon maintaining good standards and public accountability. Ultimately, that depends on this kind of whistleblowing. Residents in his block had tried to raise the issues through official channels, but had not been adequately listened to, so taking things to a higher level was legitimate in this case.

No one is saying that Ben did not send a lot of communications and did not publish negative information about his housing provider, but people should be free to do that, and Ben’s activities have been vindicated in their substance. The evidence of the issues in his block is well documented. Images and video footage were published by ITV, which reported the issue based on Ben’s public campaigning. There were also many complaints by other residents posted to Facebook. Those have since been taken down, but there was an admission by the housing company in response to ITV that residents’ complaints had not been adequately handled.

Jenkins and numerous other residents have now received payouts, and the Housing Ombudsman has found that the housing provider had failed to adequately respond to a series of serious complaints, including a rat infestation, a broken boiler, a burst toilet cistern, noise complaints and a roof that needed to be repaired. By speaking out about these issues that needed to be dealt with, Ben faced a series of legal threats for his campaigning. He was accused by GSA’s lawyers of harassment, of copyright infringement for using the logo on his blog and of putting himself forward to complain on behalf of tenants who should have contacted the company directly. I have heard that familiar phrase many times before.

GSA claimed that Ben Jenkins’s criticism was excessive and targeted individual employees, who he named on social media. GSA also said that the criticism was so frequent that it prevented the company from being able to respond to other residents’ issues, which obviously GSA was clearly doing. It demanded in its legal threats that Jenkins sign undertakings to avoid legal action himself, including a commitment to refrain from

“any conduct that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any of the Claimant’s employees, agents or contractors”.

That condition was so broad that Ben Jenkins felt he had no choice but to refuse. The letter itself threatened that failure to sign these undertakings could incur

“legal costs which are likely to run into thousands of pounds”.

That phrase is clearly a threat to someone living in affordable housing. Ultimately, Ben Jenkins signed a more limited series of undertakings, but he refused to take down his website criticising the housing provider.

The battle with GSA has had a serious ongoing effect on Ben’s mental health. He hopes that by shedding a light on these matters, the wellbeing and safety of residents will be protected and the proper upkeep of homes across the UK will be ensured. He wants to contribute to the raising of awareness about the challenges faced and ensure accountability. I hope that the Minister will look at this case, these issues and abuses of legal proceedings and the use of bullying lawfare, where money and resources are used to shield the powerful from proper public scrutiny when they should be held to account. Will the Minister look at bringing in new action to put in a robust, broad and compressive Bill to prevent it from happening?

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest, as I spent more than a decade working on open government transparency and accountability around the world, supporting journalists and civil society to hold Governments to account, often in countries where people could be locked up for speaking truth to power. Indeed, I worked as an investigative journalist reporting on corruption in Uganda many years ago, standing up to people who wanted to silence our stories.

I begin by recognising and paying tribute to the brave reporters, investigative journalists and victims of SLAPPs in the UK and around the world. People look to us to lead by example on democracy and free speech—I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for all his work on media freedom—but our leadership is undermined by the use of these lawsuits to harass, intimidate and silence critics of the corrupt and powerful in this country.

As we have already heard, the UK legal system has become fertile ground for SLAPPs, particularly for those who wish to conceal money laundering and economic crime. A survey by the Foreign Policy Centre, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred, found that international reporters on financial crime and corruption face as many threats of court action in England as they do from all other European countries and the US combined.

Other Members have mentioned the case of Catherine Belton, the investigative journalist who received multiple legal threats following the publication of her book, “Putin’s People”. Four oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, who owns frozen assets in my constituency, and a Russian state oil company launched lawsuits against her and her publisher HarperCollins. Abramovich sued over a number of claims, including that he bought Chelsea football club on Putin’s orders. That libel was settled, but had that trial gone ahead, the legal bill would likely have exceeded £10 million.

Similarly, the journalist Tom Burgis faced legal action for his book “Kleptopia” from the mining company the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. ENRC sued Burgis personally and also targeted his publisher, again HarperCollins. It even went so far as suing the Financial Times over an article related to Burgis’s book. The defence for Burgis and his publisher cost nearly £340,000. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) mentioned, many organisations without that financial firepower would never be able to fight those lawsuits as the Financial Times did. That claim was dismissed by the judge, but had the case gone to trial and been lost, the estimated costs including ENRC’s legal fees and damages would have risen to £1.5 million. For these journalists, the mere threat of losing their home or public disgrace shows how SLAPPs are not just about winning cases in court; they are about silencing dissent and a chilling effect on free speech.

It is welcome that there is support from across the House on this topic. Provisions introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 were a welcome step. However, those measures apply only to cases involving economic crime and have not yet been fully implemented in the civil procedure rules. We must move swiftly to enact those provisions so that, in cases around corruption and kleptocracy, people cannot exploit the UK legal system to silence those who seek to expose their crimes.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we must go further. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge just last month in an article in The Guardian that the Government will

“tackle the use of Slapps to protect investigative journalism”.

I turn to perhaps the most harrowing recent example of the danger posed by SLAPPs: that of Mohammed al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, which is in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater. In September, the BBC aired allegations that al-Fayed raped five women and sexually assaulted over a dozen others while they worked for him. Since then, over 200 women have come forward with allegations, but, for decades, efforts to hold al-Fayed accountable were thwarted by legal threats and intimidation. As far back as 1995, Vanity Fair published an article about al-Fayed that detailed how he had sued The Observer over a story about the sources of his wealth. Other journalists were also threatened or sued. At the time, the journalist Maureen Orth wrote:

“All critical reporting outside The Observer virtually stopped”.

Allegations in the press of sexual abuse were suppressed.

In 2008, The Mail on Sunday prepared a report stating that al-Fayed was under investigation for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old. Legal threats forced it to remove his name and refer instead to a “senior Harrods executive”. That is how SLAPPs work—they do not just protect reputations; they shield individuals from accountability and allow abuse to continue unchecked. Al-Fayed died before he could face justice. Imagine how many women’s lives would not have been ruined if anti-SLAPP legislation had been in place and journalists had been able to report freely on the case. My thoughts are with all the victims of Mohammed al-Fayed; I am sure the whole House will join me in that. Their bravery in coming forward now deserves our utmost respect. It is not least for them that we must ensure that men like al-Fayed can no longer use these lawsuits to conceal their horrific crimes.

I ask the Minister: how can we ensure that this Parliament will act decisively to finish the job, following the Prime Minister’s commitment? As I mentioned, the current economic crime legislation is a step forward, but the existing SLAPPs provisions must be implemented swiftly and the scope of provisions must go further to cover other forms of wrongdoing, including sexual misconduct, war crimes and harassment, as we have heard from Members across the House.

First, further legislation in this Parliament will be needed to ensure that, for example, we have a filter mechanism that empowers courts to dispose swiftly of SLAPPs without the need for a subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the SLAPP filer. Where there may be ongoing abuse, there must be a very high threshold.

Secondly, there must be penalties that are sufficient to deter the use of SLAPPs and provide full compensation to those targeted. Those penalties should take into account both the harm caused to the defendant and the conduct and resources available to the claimant. The level playing field argument needs to be made clearly. Finally, there must be protective measures for SLAPP victims, including cost protections, safeguards and measures to reduce the ability of SLAPP claimants to weaponise the litigation process, including against investigative journalists.

SLAPPs are not just a legal tactic; they are weapons against transparency, accountability and justice. We have the power and the responsibility to ensure that the UK legal system cannot be hijacked by the corrupt and powerful. We must ensure that those trying to uncover crimes and corruption of the wealthy and powerful—journalists, academics and whistleblowers—are protected and not persecuted. Let us send a clear message today as a united House that the UK will no longer be a safe haven for those seeking to silence their critics.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing the debate. I have listened with interest to all hon. Members, and it is a welcome exception that we are speaking in the House with unity and with one voice, from a shared sense of the value of free speech, to stop the bullies who use SLAPPs to intimidate people so horrifically.

I too have a story. It is about a lady called Carrie Jones, who received a legal letter from a “wealth creator”, Samuel Leeds, after she raised concerns about Leeds’s interactions with her brother, who had died of suicide after spending thousands on Mr Leeds’s controversial courses. Carrie lost her brother Danny, who was an Army reservist, to suicide in 2019. Before his death, he had attended a course run by Samuel Leeds, who still offers controversial courses on achieving financial freedom through property investment. Danny, who was vulnerable and in debt even before joining Mr Leeds’s course, attempted to secure a refund from Mr Leeds before he took his life.

Carrie attempted to contact Mr Leeds after her brother’s death to understand the effect that the course had had on him, but she never received a satisfactory response, so she spoke to some journalists and others who had handled Leeds’s courses—which sister would not? She wanted answers for her family, but she also felt that there was a serious public interest concern about Mr Leeds’s business, not least because his courses did not appear to be regulated by any professional or governmental body. A trading standards authority had ignored her attempts to raise concerns about wealth creators such as Mr Leeds.

Shortly after Carrie spoke to her Member of Parliament about Mr Leeds’s courses, she received a legal letter from Ellisons, a firm of solicitors representing Leeds in numerous legal disputes with his critics. That legal letter suggested that she had been participating in a campaign of harassment against Mr Leeds. It did not immediately threaten her with a lawsuit, but it warned that legal action could follow if she suggested that Mr Leeds and his course had had any influence on her brother’s suicide. Carrie responded firmly that she would not retract her criticism and would continue to raise awareness until her questions were answered. What a very brave woman! A YouTube channel on which she had featured asking questions about Mr Leeds’s involvement with her brother was subject to legal threats and closed down.

It will not surprise the House to hear that this is not the only instance of Mr Samuel Leeds sending threats. The Guardian has found some 15 individuals subject to legal threats from Mr Leeds, while The Economist has reported on the despair of attendees, who felt the course was a scam.

Another man, who asked to remain anonymous, attended a course run by Samuel Leeds and was dissatisfied. He later posted on the Facebook page of Mr Nick Fletcher —a former Member of Parliament—asking whether there were any safeguarding measures to protect vulnerable people from wealth creation schemes, which was not an unreasonable request. He wrote that he lives with disabilities and had seen people trying to manipulate the vulnerable into paying for these courses. That is all he said; he did not mention Samual Leeds.

Despite not naming Mr Leeds, the man received a letter from Ellisons Solicitors, on Mr Leeds’s behalf, citing the Facebook comment and warning:

“Any mention of our clients may be perceived as harassment and/or defamation.”

A spokesperson for Mr Leeds has commented:

“Danny Butcher's death in 2019 was a tragedy. Your account of the relevant events is one-sided and misses important context, which we have no confidence you will fairly represent”—

to fellow MPs. He continued:

“Our business and founder were subjected to a campaign of abuse and sustained attacks, including unwarranted defamatory and even obscene and deeply personal publications.”

What a sensitive soul. Along with Members of all parties, I, as a Liberal Democrat, resoundingly request that the Government build SLAPPs into any legislation that is coming forward, because it is desperately needed for this country, our citizens and our legal system.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this vital debate. I declare an interest, which I have raised with the Speaker’s Office and parliamentary authorities, as I am currently the defendant in a lawsuit. I will refer not to that but to general concepts.

We pride ourselves in this country on free speech—the quality of our campaigners, our journalism, our broadcasters and our investigators—so how ironic, embarrassing and frankly humiliating that we should be the global epicentre of SLAPPs designed to prevent exactly that. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) said, there is a crisis in free speech now in this country, and a crisis of fear among journalists, authors, writers and broadcasters about what they can and cannot say.

How have we got to this situation? Surely, if we are a beacon of free speech around the world, with the greatest Parliament and the greatest legal system, we should be able to preserve and protect free speech. We have heard lots of shocking examples and evidence, but there are examples elsewhere in the world—states in America, for example—where anti-SLAPP mechanisms have been introduced.

As a new Member of this place, I was surprised to hear how long we have been talking about this—years and years. This Government have been elected on a mandate of change, so now seems to be the moment for them to grasp that mandate in this vital issue and say, “Yes. It’s now time to stop talking about this and do something about it with concerted action.” I just hope that the Minister and the Government will find time in this Session to bring forward anti-SLAPP mechanisms in legislation to preserve what we cherish so dearly: free speech.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. It has been an education for me.

I want to refer to a constituent of mine by name. I heard the cautionary remarks at the start of the debate, so I will not name any other individuals. None of these matters is sub judice. Jan Cruickshank has consented to the use of her name today in the sharing of details of her case. She is a devoted mother of three and has been in a committed relationship with her husband Rob since meeting as childhood sweethearts. Many of the cases we have heard about today involve mega-wealthy, high-profile individuals. Jan is not such an individual.

Jan faced a problem with her employer, the Construction Industry Training Board. In 2015, she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a co-worker at the Construction Industry Training Board. Upon reporting the assault to CITB, Jan unfortunately suffered a nervous breakdown and had to take sick leave. The person against whom the complaint was made was put on gardening leave. He returned after a week, even though he had been told to take at least a month. On returning to work, he began propagating false narratives, suggesting that Jan was falsely accusing him. Jan had reported the assault while in a vulnerable state, having recently suffered a significant house fire. The conditions of a subsequent police interview, which lasted approximately 10 hours, in a damaged environment compromised the integrity of the process.

A senior whistleblower at CITB has revealed that its legal team had indicated a substantial potential liability should Jan’s case come to trial. The whistleblower confirmed that there was a targeted campaign to discredit Jan over several mediums. CITB misused the false narrative to depict Jan as a home-wrecker, subsequently initiating a predetermined human resources investigation focused on facilitating her exit from the company. A second whistleblower has corroborated that management planned to exit Jan from the business a month before her HR process was complete.

Following the assault, Jan was placed in the untenable position of having to confront her alleged attacker daily on her return to work, amid ongoing HR investigations. Let us bear in mind that this was 2015—someone had to face that situation because a large employer had failed to take proper steps to separate those two individuals and allow them to work freely. Jan’s employment was terminated after what she describes as a warped and unprofessional HR investigation. CITB later communicated to the police that the situation stemmed from a consensual relationship, and further lied to the police, suggesting that Jan had been sending explicit pictures to the offender, dismissing the severity of the allegations. That submission had a severely negative impact on her case and does so to this day.

Jan pursued matters to an employment tribunal, with the support of her union, but she faced significant challenges. Here is the rub, which is relevant to the debate today: she was pressured into accepting a settlement far below the realistic sum that she should have been entitled to. Furthermore, she was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so she could not speak freely about the case. This is why I believe that Jan’s case falls into the category of a SLAPP. She is determined to seek justice, so that the alleged attacker is prosecuted and she receives just compensation. This will enable her and her family to move forward.

The term SLAPP is often employed to describe legal actions aimed at harassing, intimidating, or exhausting victims’ resources. A broader understanding of SLAPPs emphasises the need for protective measures for individuals seeking justice. Jan should not have been subjected to a HR investigation or an employment tribunal. Rather, she deserved time off work for recovery and support following the trauma that she had experienced. Worst of all, the Police Scotland interviewing officer lacked the requisite training to handle such a sensitive sexual assault case, resulting in the premature conclusion of the matter. It was later discovered that this was the officer’s first interview of that type, and she should have had supervision to guide her.

I could wax on about many more aspects of this case, but I will bring it to a close at this point, because Jan’s situation starkly illustrates the extreme harm that can be inflicted by behaviours classified as strategic lawsuits against public participation. These tactics not only target individual victims but create a pervasive ripple effect that extends to their families, communities and the broader public. I ask CITB to consider issuing a public apology to Jan; I ask the police to consider re-looking at the whole way that the case was handled; and I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss this situation further in more detail.

I thank all the Members who have spoken for setting the scene so well, and for giving so many personal examples in explaining where we are at the moment. It is nice to see the Minister back in the House, and it is also nice to see her elevated to her present position. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) in particular for presenting the case so well and so succinctly.

I speak as someone who was named in a civil litigation High Court case involving the covid vaccine, of all things in this world—my goodness!—along with the Northern Ireland Minister for Health and other representatives from our area. We were named collectively by someone who had decided to do it. The case had no foundation whatever, but I nevertheless had to appoint a barrister and prepare to defend something that needed no defence, along with many other Members of the Legislative Assembly and civil servants. Although this was litigious and unnecessary and had no legal foundation, the stress and the time that it took up were terrible. Those with few means or moneys pursued a SLAPP against others who were totally innocent. The judge struck out the case of one defendant straight away, and the domino effect was that the rest of us received the same treatment by right. I was very thankful for that approach when I was having to pay legal fees from my own pocket for discussing and voting for Government policy—which was a bit hard to comprehend.

We live in an increasingly litigious society. Defence can cost everything to many people, and although in many cases costs will be awarded, that cannot compensate for the sleepless nights and the levels of stress, and give back the peace that was taken away and replaced by a dark, weighty cloud of uncertainty.

We have seen a number of SLAPP cases recently in Northern Ireland; they seem to be happening regularly. In January, Northern Ireland’s High Court dismissed a “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious” defamation claim brought against the Belfast journalist and author Malachi O’Doherty by the Sinn Féin politician Gerry Kelly. The foundation of the SLAPP was that the journalist had dared to talk about the Maze prison breakout that had been detailed in Gerry Kelly’s own books, and about the fact that he had shot a prison guard.

Mr Kelly tried to silence the reporter, apart from expecting him to offer an apology for stating what everyone in Northern Ireland knows to be the truth. Indeed, the magistrate highlighted the content of those very books, which appeared to make Mr Kelly civilly liable, on the balance of probabilities, for the shooting of Mr Adams, the prison guard. Mr Kelly knows what happened, the prison guards knew what happened, his fellow escapees knew what happened, and—most important —Mr Adams’s family know what happened, yet Kelly attempted to silence discussion of it with a lawsuit. The judge was very clear in his ruling that cases could be thrown out, stating that the proceedings

“bear the hallmarks of a SLAPP and have been initiated not for the genuine purposes of vindicating a reputation injured by defamatory statements, but rather for the purpose of stifling the voices of his troublesome critics.”

This is why we need the ability for the judiciary to step in at an early stage and prevent the stifling of freedom of speech in such civil cases. It seems to be an old trick on the part of many people who like to drag up the past of others while silencing the voices that speak about their own past. I read an interesting article published by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition about another Sinn Féin case, this time involving Gerry Adams, who was attempting to use this method to silence those highlighting the news that he could be civilly sued by victims of the London and Manchester bombings. According to the article, last year 15 organisations wrote to the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, to express concern about the use of SLAPPs by party members. The co-chairs of the coalition wrote:

“It is incredibly concerning that efforts to call out legal intimidation are now being subject to legal intimidation themselves. While solicitors do remain independent from their clients, they cannot disassociate themselves from the legal tactics that are deployed in the course of litigation.”

I believe that to be true.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the situation can be addressed, hopefully through legislation in the House. This tactic must be called out for what it is, which is not to say that we should never be able to prevent someone from spreading lies and falsehoods—we, including every Member in the House, must retain the right to defend our character—but that is different from using a legal machine to silence the little man or the little woman. I support legislation throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I believe we must ensure that it is in place for the judiciary to use as and when it is needed. Freedom of speech is worth protecting in legislation—we all say that—and I believe that this Parliament must send that message today. Legislation is needed, and I look forward to hearing from the Front Benchers have to say.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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.

I call the shadow Minister.

I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Lord Prescott, who was the sort of political figure who cut across party lines. As a teenager with just a passing interest in politics, I fondly remember seeing that punch and thinking, “Good for him!” As a shadow Minister, I should clarify that by saying he was exercising his lawful right to self- defence. May he rest in peace.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We are debating an issue that is always a challenge for any democracy: how do we ensure that bad actors do not exploit important protections that have been put in place for our benefit, and how do we prevent measures that are meant to act as a shield from being turned into a weapon? These tensions find sharp expression in the misuse of our legal system through SLAPPs. They are not just frivolous lawsuits or the expected robust exchange between solicitors and their clients; they are a serious, deliberate tactic used to stifle voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful to account. They are designed to intimidate, drain resources and create a chilling effect that suppresses important public discourse.

It has been positive to hear contributions from Members that demonstrate a deep understanding of this issue and its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) drew on his experience of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of being a former Secretary of State in discussing all the key issues that we have considered today, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East reminded us of the importance of ensuring that the other side of the debate is remembered when it comes to allowing people to fairly protect their reputation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked in helpful detail about what happened to the former Member Charlotte Leslie, reminding us how much politicians are in the firing line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has joined me on the Opposition Front Bench, is concerned about how SLAPPs can be used to stifle debate both locally and nationally.

Of course, all Back Benchers here today want to see action from the Government. Although the tone of the debate has been consensual, it is the job of the Opposition to hold this new Government to account. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Labour Members, when in opposition earlier this year, supported legislation that would have built on our work in this area. Now that they are in government, however, reasons to delay have appeared. In the other place, the Government have said that they now think a further review is needed. Today, alongside an explanation for this change, I hope that we will hear a more concrete commitment and a clear plan from the Minister.

SLAPPs extend their impact far beyond the courtroom. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and even grieving families raising safety concerns have found themselves silenced. SLAPPs do not defend reputations; they conceal misconduct, shield wrongdoing and erode public trust in our institutions. In the previous Parliament, as a member of the Justice Committee, I had the welcome opportunity to join a one-off session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that did an excellent job of putting SLAPPs in the parliamentary spotlight. I got to hear at first hand from witnesses working across journalism, many of whom have been mentioned today, including Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”; investigative journalist Tom Burgis; Susan Coughtrie from the Foreign Policy Centre, who is co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition; and Arabella Pike, who is head of publishing at William Collins.

I distinctly remember Catherine and Arabella talking powerfully about their experience of the sustained legal attack that “Putin’s People” came under, and it was clear that it took real courage to persevere with its publication. Tom described his experience across Africa, and the wider network of oligarchs and corrupt Governments working together to suppress journalism that would have held them to account. He has direct experience of successfully defeating SLAPPs relating to his own book, as others have mentioned. Susan described how individuals take advantage of good journalistic practices, whereby giving a right to reply is used to start to overwhelm journalists, and highlighted that this sort of activity is undertaken by not just legal professionals but other, unregulated individuals. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented numerous cases where SLAPPs have smothered stories of profound public interest—stories exposing safety failures, corruption and malpractice. Such cases deserved public scrutiny, yet they were buried beneath a mountain of legal threats.

Of course, the right to defend one’s reputation is important. It ensures fairness, prevents the spread of harmful falsehoods, and protects individuals from malicious attacks. Like others who have spoken today, I have first-hand experience of that. A journalistic blogger decided that they had proof that my time spent volunteering as a policeman was made up, and that I had committed a criminal offence in lying about it. At the height of an election campaign, I saw that story spread across social media and reach tens of thousands of people. It was only through my taking the available legal steps that stopped it spreading further. Shoddy journalism should not find shelter in anti-SLAPPs legislation, but when SLAPPs turn the scales of justice into tools of suppression, they undermine the very principles that they claim to protect.

Sadly, the UK legal system is seen by some people as a favourable domain to stifle debate. Although it is not a watertight source, a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre revealed that the UK was the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of cases. By comparison, 35% of SLAPP threats originated in the US and the EU combined.

Recognising the threat of SLAPPs, the previous Conservative Government introduced important legislation that the current Government said represented a significant step forward in this area. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 defined SLAPPs in law for the first time, introduced swift dismissal mechanisms and implemented cost protections in claims relating to economic crime, reflecting the then Government’s belief that 70% of SLAPPs are linked to financial corruption and the scope of the original Bill. The last Government also established the SLAPPs taskforce, a group of legal and media professionals tasked with improving our understanding of SLAPPs and equipping stakeholders to combat them. As others have mentioned, during the previous Parliament the former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, introduced the strategic litigation against public participation Bill, a private Member’s Bill that presented further possible steps to address SLAPPs.

I will introduce my own Bill, which is based on that Bill, in early January. Will my Bill have the support of the Conservative party Opposition?

That is an important point and, notwithstanding my hope that the Government will introduce legislation, I expect that we will be able to support a Bill that is suitably similar to the one originally presented.

Mr David’s Bill proposed a robust framework to combat SLAPPs, including a wider early dismissal mechanism, and a requirement on claimants to demonstrate a greater likelihood of success for a trial to proceed. Additionally, the Bill called for new civil procedure rules to protect defendants from adverse costs when SLAPP claims go to trial. Crucially, it would have empowered the Lord Chancellor to extend this framework to other courts or tribunals if SLAPPs were being used to circumvent these protections.

The Conservative Government recognised the Bill’s value, supporting it as a complement to the steps we had already taken, and importantly, so did the then Labour Opposition. Unfortunately, despite its potential, the Bill fell away during the wash-up before the general election, as is sadly too often the case.

The proposals had cross-party support. There was no call from the then Opposition for a review or for things to be considered further, which they have now decided is necessary. In a recent article, the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, Susan Coughtrie, expressed her disappointment that Labour has not developed a clear plan for similar legislation:

“This could have been a relatively ‘easy win’ not only for the new government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the democratic health of our society.”

She is right, of course, and I cannot think of a new Government in more dire need of an easy win than this Labour Government.

With all this in mind, I urge the Minister to address several pressing questions. Given the Government’s support in opposition for the private Member’s Bill and its measures, why have they now determined that a further, delaying review is needed? When will this review be complete? Even if the review recommends some changes to the approach outlined in that Bill, do the Government commit in principle to introducing comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year? If not, when will they bring forward legislation?

Will the Government commit to further and ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to see whether its work could be reformed to deter law firms from taking on SLAPP cases? Finally, will the Minister commit to supporting the ongoing work of the SLAPPs taskforce? Ahead of legislation that has been unnecessarily delayed, this would send a strong signal of the Government’s commitment on this issue.

The balance we must strike is clear. Our legal framework must protect the right to defend one’s reputation while safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that public interest journalism can thrive. I urge the Government to pick up where we left off, as they have a detailed and comprehensive private Member’s Bill ready to go. The powerful must not be allowed to misuse the legal system to suppress scrutiny and silence critics.

In opposition, Labour Members were clear on what they supported and what needed to be done. Somehow, entering government has brought uncertainty and hesitation to their thinking. At a time when too much of this House’s legislative capacity is left unused, and when this Government desperately need a positive story to tell, they have changed course. I encourage them to build on our work and deliver in this area so that we can reaffirm our commitment to justice, accountability and the public interest, and ensure that the UK remains a beacon of free speech and fairness under the law.

I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s lovely remarks about Lord Prescott. John was a political giant, and I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our thoughts and condolences to his family.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital subject so early in this Parliament. We have had a good debate today, and I have always thought that Backbench Business debates lend themselves well to issues where there is general cross-party consensus that a problem exists but where we need thoughtful, forensic consideration about how to move forward with sensible, workable proposals.

I echo the comments of the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), on how good it is to hear the wisdom of long-standing Members, such as the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), while also hearing powerful contributions from newly elected Members, particularly the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, although I would also like to discuss with the Department for Business and Trade whether it might be more appropriate for him to meet a Minister from that Department, given that the matters he raised relate primarily to non-disclosure agreements.

SLAPPs represent an abuse of our legal system. They curtail free speech, have a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to our democracy. As we have heard today, they are characterised by the use of threatening tactics or actions to silence those who exercise their right to free speech on issues in the public interest. These cases often involve an acute imbalance of power where those with deep pockets use their wealth and influence to silence journalists, academics and others who are committed to raising issues that need to see the light of day. These powerful actors do so by abusing the legal system to suppress information on which we collectively rely. True accountability and transparency in a functioning democracy can be achieved only through free speech and a free press that upholds the highest journalistic standards while challenging abuses of power without fear of financial ruin. As the Prime Minister recently wrote:

“This is a government that will always champion press freedoms. We believe in being held to account.”

That must apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth or position.

The Government understand the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. Such actions have enormous consequences for the wellbeing and the very livelihoods of those on the receiving end of them, because SLAPP conduct is not about winning a legal argument or remedy. Instead, a SLAPP seeks to exhaust a defendant so that they withdraw their investigation or public commentary. That was very clear in the responses received to the 2022 call for evidence run by the previous Government.

SLAPPs also impact the standing of our legal system. That system, underpinned by the quality of our legal services and independent judiciary, is held in the highest esteem internationally. The legal services sector contributes £34 billion to our economy each year. We must not allow our world-renowned system to be abused for improper purposes. I must emphasise that the vast majority of legal professionals in this jurisdiction operate with the utmost honesty, professionalism and respect for the rule of law. However, the small minority who abuse our system by bringing SLAPP claims risk undermining its integrity and reputation.

By their very nature, SLAPPs rarely reach court. Claimants ensure that by racking up pre-litigation costs so as to make defending the case beyond the reach of those targeted, often journalists investigating wrongdoings in the public interest. There are detailed accounts of how aggressive letters put pressure on targets to remain silent, proceedings are brought in multiple jurisdictions to ramp up risk for defendants, and disproportionate costs are claimed in relation to the remedy sought. Apart from the distress obviously caused to those exercising their right to free speech, in media cases resources are diverted as press outlets’ in-house lawyers are forced to spend hours poring over a defence, instead of publishing material of real interest. In the case of freelance journalists without insurance or academics, there is often no legal resource at all for them to get advice from when a threat from a SLAPP claimant comes in.

Defendants are often unable to take on the risks associated with fighting the lawsuits in court, usually because of the exorbitant costs they would have to pay to the claimant if they were unsuccessful in defending their case. Time-sensitive reporting is also hindered when a SLAPP is issued, as it prevents the journalist from revealing critical information while the case is ongoing. We cannot accept that chilling effect on public interest journalism and the prevention of other information in the public interest seeing the light of day.

To their credit, the previous Government introduced legislation to tackle SLAPPs that relate to economic crime in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which received Royal Assent towards the end of last year. We supported the SLAPPs provisions in the Act in opposition, and I am proud that we are the first country to legislate against SLAPPs at national level. The Act introduced a statutory definition of a SLAPP and required the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to develop a new early dismissal process to strike out SLAPPs without merit, and to develop rules providing cost protection for defendants who are subject to a SLAPP.

I thank the CPRC’s SLAPPs sub-committee, which has been working hard on developing these rules. We expect its work to conclude early next year. The CPRC will then consider the matter, and once recommendations are adopted there will be clear court procedure in place to deal with these abusive lawsuits where they relate to allegations of economic crime. The measures will go some way towards tackling this abusive practice.

The Government understand that SLAPP claims are used to suppress public interest information beyond just economic crime. We have heard many examples today that illustrate the range of subjects they can cover. The right balance has to be struck between access to justice and the right to free speech. There will always be legitimate defamation claims, and any intervention must be proportionate and targeted appropriately. I am clear that this is a complex area and we should not legislate in haste, only to find ourselves with unworkable legislation with unintended consequences. We do not currently intend to legislate in this parliamentary session, but we are continuing our work to consider how best to tackle wider abuses of the system in the longer term.

I welcome that general commitment. Apologies if the Minister was going to come on to it, but could she explain why, when Labour was content with the legislation drawn up in the private Member’s Bill, it now feels it is too complicated and unbalanced, and cannot be implemented?

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next section of my speech. We saw, during the passage of the private Member’s Bill before it fell on Prorogation, that there are strong and differing views on SLAPPs. I understand that there were still unresolved issues before Prorogation. The former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, the promoter the Bill, was a very good friend to me when I was previously in this House. I know there are current Members who would like me to just pick up where he left off, but I do not think it is quite as simple as that. I have read Hansard carefully and deliberately to ensure that I am aware of views across the House on this topic. I will also be meeting colleagues from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Home Office shortly to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government.

This is an important and complex issue, where fundamental principles of free speech and justice are at play, so it is imperative that we take the time to get this right. Our immediate focus, therefore, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provisions. Our future approach to SLAPPs reform will be informed by monitoring the operation of the new procedural rules when they come in. We continue to build our evidence base, taking into account the views of stakeholders that were raised during debates on the private Member’s Bill. I also invite parliamentarians to continue engagement with us as we consider longer-term options to tackle SLAPPs beyond economic crime.

As well as the legislative measures that were to be taken forward through Wayne David’s Bill, non-legislative measures were being developed through the SLAPPs taskforce. Could the Minister say whether that is still continuing?

The right hon. Gentleman also pre-empts the next part of my speech. I am very happy to tell the House that I am keen to consider a range of non-legislative measures—procedural measures in the court—while not ruling out the possibility of legislation in future, but I want to take time to look at what options will work best.

As I said, we are also paying close attention to evolving approaches to SLAPPs in other jurisdictions, notably following the adoption of the Council of Europe’s recommendations on SLAPPs, which were concluded last year.

Legislation is not the only weapon in our arsenal to deal with abuse of the system. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken action. Its updated warning notice on SLAPPs in May this year reminded solicitors and law firms of their duties and the serious consequences of breaches of those duties, with new fining powers of up to £25,000 when a regulated firm or individual does not meet its professional standards. The SRA also published guidance for members of the public who may have been targeted by a SLAPP, including details of how to report the activity so it can be investigated and dealt with promptly. Up until May this year, the SRA had received a total of 71 reports on SLAPPs, and two cases have been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. We remain engaged with legal service regulators on this important subject. I am clear that where UK law firms or practitioners are accused of breaching their duties, it is important that regulators can hold them to account and tackle poor conduct. I therefore welcome the work of the SRA in doing that.

The SLAPPs taskforce, referred to by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), was, as he will know, launched in September last year to support journalists who are working to investigate and publish stories in the public interest. The taskforce sits within the framework of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, and has worked on non-legislative measures to protect public interest journalism from SLAPPs, alongside the measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The DCMS is engaged on this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), will be meeting members of the SLAPPs taskforce later this month to discuss progress, including how data collection and sharing has improved understanding of the prevalence of SLAPPs experienced by the media profession.

I am confident in the careful and considered approach that this Government are taking to the issue of SLAPPs. It is important that we listen closely to the differing views on this topic and that any action we take is proportionate. That involves considering a range of options for longer-term reform that accounts for the diversity of views expressed by stakeholders and those targeted by these abhorrent actions.

To echo the Prime Minister, behaviour that makes use of SLAPPs is intolerable and we will tackle it to protect investigative journalism and free speech, while also ensuring access to justice. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for championing this critical issue and all those who tirelessly campaign against abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech. Nothing could be more important.

To wind up this afternoon’s first debate, I call Lloyd Hatton.

I want to wind up the debate by thanking the many Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).

It was clear from all those contributions that in this House there is a broad consensus about the need for an overhaul of our approach to SLAPPs, in both a legislative and a regulatory sense. Indeed, for once, there appears to be an outbreak of agreement in the Chamber that something must be done. It was useful to hear from the Minister, therefore, that she and the Prime Minister understand that this is important. We cannot allow the scandal of SLAPPs to go unchallenged any longer. Sadly, things have moved too slowly for too long. This is an opportunity for us to work together, on both sides of the House, to finally put the issue to bed, once and for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) on the publication of stories in the public interest; acknowledges that most cases of SLAPPs do not reach the courts, but are blocked or changed at an earlier, unseen stage; further recognises the importance of disclosing suppressed stories under parliamentary privilege in order to highlight the broader impact of legal threats on free speech; further acknowledges efforts made to tackle SLAPPs through the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023; and calls on the Government to introduce comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that provides swift dismissal of such cases, protects those targeted from prohibitive legal costs, and ensures that SLAPP filers face significant financial deterrents.