Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

I call Alex Sobel, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

I beg to move, That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly. I rise to speak on this motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPPs. It is the custom to thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is our second attempt to have this debate. Last time, I agreed to pull it, so there could be a longer debate on settlement goods. However, I thank the Committee for giving us 90 minutes of protected time; otherwise, we would have had only 44 minutes for this debate. That is really why I am thanking it this evening. A SLAPP is litigation, or commonly the threat of litigation, designed primarily to silence criticism, rather than vindicate a legitimate legal right. The objective is often not to win in court, but to make speaking out so expensive, stressful and risky that journalists, campaigners, academics, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens decide that remaining silent is the safer option. On the surface, SLAPPs may appear to be a niche media law issue. However, as we will no doubt hear in examples from Members today, by suppressing information that is in the public interest, SLAPPs undermine our democracy, our public watchdogs and the integrity of our justice system. Back in June, during Justice questions, the then Secretary of State recognised the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the threat they represent to democracy and free speech. He also highlighted that SLAPPs extend beyond journalism and issues of free speech, and are used to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants who have complained to landlords. That is one of five reasons why this debate is particularly important and timely. Many think SLAPPs are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs. In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever. The expanding scope of this abuse across all types of public interest is deeply concerning. There has been a significant spike in cases reported to the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition over the last 18 months, a large proportion of which are from private citizens who have spoken out about concerns in their local area, or services they have received. No doubt, we all have constituents affected by SLAPPs. Secondly, the tactics are evolving. While defamation remains a common legal basis for use, SLAPPs are now being brought through claims such as harassment, data protection, privacy and trespass, demonstrating that any effective response must establish universal protections, irrespective of the cause of action. Thirdly, the UK appears to be an attractive jurisdiction for this kind of legal abuse. Our expensive litigation and claimant-friendly reputation have made London a popular destination, while the European Union has moved ahead with an anti-SLAPP directive and 22 EU countries have taken action to progress anti-SLAPP legislation at a national level. In the UK, broad protection is still absent, and we risk becoming an outlier. Fourthly, in recent months, the limit of the regulatory framework has been brought into sharp focus. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has faced challenges in progressing SLAPP complaints, particularly those that have reached the tribunal stage, and recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgments have failed to address the fundamental issue of SLAPPs as an abusive tactic. Despite over 70 cases being opened since 2022, only three have so far progressed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Moreover, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has not publicly released any data regarding the state of its SLAPP-related investigations since 2024. While new legislation is urgently required, it must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action. Finally, Parliament now has an opportunity to act. Before the summer recess, two new private Members’ Bills were introduced: one by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)—I am sure that we will hear more from him on that—and one in the other place by Baroness Stowell. The Bills aim to create broader anti-SLAPP protection. The issue before us is no longer whether the problem exists; it is whether we are prepared to legislate with the urgency the problem demands. Many of Britain’s biggest national scandals only came to light because determined journalists, courageous whistleblowers and persistent campaigners refused to be intimidated, but SLAPPs have often been present. SLAPPs delayed reporting on the Horizon Post Office scandal, maternity scandals in teaching hospitals—such as those in Oxford and in my constituency in Leeds—and the Grenfell tower tragedy. Think about the scandals we have never discovered because someone successfully silenced those asking the questions. That is why the issue is about far more than protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public’s right to know. I acknowledge that the previous Government recognised the problem. Following the Ministry of Justice’s 2022 consultation, reforms were introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, creating protections against SLAPPs connected to economic crime, including an early dismissal mechanism and greater protections on legal costs. Those were welcome reforms, but they are also flawed and limited; they only protect investigations into economic crime and depend on a complex and time-intensive process to determine the intentions or mindset of the claimant. Those limitations matter. Public interest speech is not confined to speech about corruption, fraud and money laundering. It also concerns patient safety, environmental harm, housing conditions, human rights abuses, sexual violence, animal welfare and failures of public administration, among other things. People should not lose protections simply because the wrongdoing they expose does not fit within a narrow statutory category. That is why I am calling on the Government to use the opportunity of the two private Members’ Bills to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation. I will keep my remarks short because we are short on time, and I want to ensure that all Members who have come to this debate get to speak. I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been working on this issue for the last five years, supporting the cases that we will hear about, including the Foreign Policy Centre, the Index on Censorship, Global Climate Legal Defence, the News Media Association, the Bureau of Investigative Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International, and all the members of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, as well as the Media Lawyers Association and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which supports this work. I also thank the targets of SLAPPs who have bravely spoken out about the legal threats they have faced. SLAPPs encourage silence to avoid increasing liability, but we only know about the scale of the issue because brave people across the country have spoken out. We are indebted to them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on obtaining this debate. It is a subject that we have discussed in this place a number of times over the years, and each time the need for action becomes even greater. Indeed, the hon. Member picked up the baton from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who was initially going to hold this debate before he was elevated to high office. I speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, and also, as the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, as the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill, which I shall introduce in November. SLAPPs have been a stain on this country’s reputation as a defender of media freedom for too long. We actually set up the Media Freedom Coalition in 2019, and I am delighted that under the outgoing Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), the UK has taken back the co-chair position with Finland. The UK’s position on media freedom is one that we can be proud of. We have gone up in the world press freedom index ranking—we are now 18th—but in its commentary on the UK, RSF said “lawsuits aimed at gagging journalists” are one reason why we are not in a higher position. SLAPPs are not new; they have been around for a long time. I spent part of my summer in my deckchair, reading an excellent book by David Hooper that recounts the history of SLAPPs, starting with James Goldsmith and his war on Private Eye, followed by Robert Maxwell, who took on Aurum Press and the biography written about him, and then, perhaps most notoriously, Mohamed al-Fayed, whose appalling actions in abusing young employees at Harrods were known about and reported on, but then suppressed as a result of the lawsuits that he sprayed around liberally, using very expensive lawyers. It is generally the case that SLAPPs are used by rich people seeking to suppress information that is clearly in the public interest. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, now 15 years ago, we looked at the advent of libel tourism—the fact that the UK courts were specifically being used by people with very little connection with the UK to bring libel suits, because we were seen to be sympathetic to the idea of libel actions, in order to suppress information. Since then, Russian oligarchs in particular have queued up to come and use the British courts. As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, we have talked to and met some of the brave people who have sought to expose those oligarchs’ actions and have been subjected to SLAPP cases—people like Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”, and Tom Burgis, the author of “Kleptopia”. It continues today. I am not going to go into a number of cases; we will perhaps have more opportunity to do so when the private Member’s Bill comes forward. However, I am particularly grateful to the Anti-SLAPP Coalition for its help in taking forward this campaign. Progress has been made: the Defamation Act 2013 sought to address some of the worst aspects of libel tourism, and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 focused specifically on those who are alleging economic crime, and it put in place some protection. However, the problem is that some of the worst cases—I go back to the work of both Catherine Belton and Tom Burgis—were not allegations of economic crime, but were more serious than that. Clearly, the provisions in that Act would not have been sufficient. In the previous Parliament, Wayne David sought to extend its provisions to cover a far wider range of actions, but sadly his private Member’s Bill did not complete its passage due to the calling of the general election. My intention is to try to complete the work that Wayne David started with his Bill. As the Minister will be very much aware, at the beginning of this year, 120 editors—including the editors of every major publication not just in the UK, but across the world—called on the Government to act. I know that the Government were committed to taking action, but unfortunately could not find a slot to do so. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the discussions that we have already had about how we might work together to bring that legislation on to the statute book. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is right that Baroness Stowell has introduced a private Member’s Bill in the other place. Her Bill has been published. There is some debate as to the mechanism that is most effective; there were concerns that the attempt in Wayne David’s Bill to set out lengthy definitions might make it more complex, and there is an argument for trying to make the test of a SLAPP simpler. Those are details that we will want to continue to discuss with the Minister and her officials. For my part, I very much hope that we can find an agreement that all of us are happy with and that will achieve the objective we all share. I should say that I am not opposed to people having the right to bring defamation actions or other suits where they feel that they have been wrongly accused of something—that is a fundamental right. What I am opposed to is the abuse of lawsuits with the deliberate intent of suppressing information that is clearly in the public interest. It is that definition that we will seek to explore how best to set out in legislation. I look forward to further meetings with the Minister. I welcome this as perhaps the first opportunity to debate what I believe is a very important issue for the freedom of speech and journalism in this country.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for working with me to secure today’s debate. It has been about nine months since I initially presented the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but I am pleased to say that it has already been worth the wait. I also congratulate the Minister on her reappointment. It was a real pleasure to work with her in my role as a Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Government. I found her no less supportive, engaged and collaborative when I have come to her with constituency issues, as I will speak to in more detail later. I would like to take this opportunity to share at least one particularly egregious example of vexatious litigation in the form of a SLAPP. Before I go any further, let me confirm that the cases I will mention today are not subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Back in 2016, Jennifer McAdam invested the inheritance that she received from her late father into a cryptocurrency called OneCoin, but OneCoin was a £3 billion lie. In reality, it was a global Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed the following year, millions of people from 125 countries lost money. In order to raise awareness and protect other investors, in 2017 Jennifer organised a webinar for other victims and cryptocurrency experts to explore ways to hold the company to account. Three weeks later, she received a legal threat from OneCoin and its co-founder Ruja Ignatova, dubbed the “Cryptoqueen” in the viral podcast that followed. That threat, sent via law firm Carter-Ruck claimed that Jennifer had defamed the so-called “Cryptoqueen” during the webinar. It went on to say that the only way to avoid a court case was to refrain from publishing similar allegations and to retract the webinar video. Even as legal action was threatened against Jennifer, regulatory action against OneCoin was already under way in a number of countries. Jennifer should have been celebrated for trying to help other victims and prevent future ones, not threatened and harassed. In 2025, Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, instructed by OneCoin, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on allegations that she sent a letter to McAdam that contained an improper threat of litigation. However, by the end of the year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings, stating that Gill had acted on explicit client instructions and had no reason at that stage to disbelieve them, and that the SRA’s allegation was founded on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct. The SRA has also been ordered to pay Gill’s costs, which Carter-Ruck claims to be around £1 million. Naturally, such sizeable costs raised fears that they may dampen the regulator’s appetite to challenge similar SLAPP-related cases in the foreseeable future. There are serious questions to be asked about the tribunal’s approach in setting such a high bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing—effectively requiring evidence of complicity—before professional ethics really kick in. My concern is that the high bar makes it conveniently easy for lawyers to simply avoid asking questions that they do not want to know the answers to. If lawyers are allowed to blindly and ignorantly pursue their clients’ interests—even when that involves silencing the police and “in furtherance of fraud”, to use the tribunal’s wording before the case was thrown out—then we will never stop SLAPPs. This is not just about London lawyers and international scams. According to reporting by the Manchester Mill, back in 2021 a solicitor named Andrew Milne acquired 67 residential freeholds at auction for around £130 per property in Horwich, in my constituency. Milne then proceeded to demand thousands of pounds from my constituents in return for their freeholds, often citing spurious breaches of lease covenants. Yet when the Sheffield Tribune sought to report on Milne’s equally outrageous behaviour in Yorkshire, he sent them a message that included the following threat: “We will definitely bring proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood if you publish such complete and malicious lies”. This is how it works: bullies, charlatans and chancers like Milne using their privileged positions to seek to silence journalists and whistleblowers from lifting the lid on their abhorrent actions. On a general policy point, I have been encouraged by noises coming out of the SRA since the regulator’s change in leadership, but as in the cases described, it strikes me that the regulatory framework as it currently stands is not up to the job. That is why a universal anti-SLAPP law is needed to ensure that those who speak out in the public interest are protected. I welcome the recent comments about the Government’s commitment to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation and the opportunity that the two private Members’ Bills on SLAPPS present both in this House and in the other place. In particular, I know that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to work with the Government in what I trust will be an exemplar of cross-party working. I hope that across party lines we can seize this opportunity to put to bed the spurious litigation put forward by individuals who seek to silence dissenting voices. To close, let me reiterate the ask from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition that legislation must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action to ensure that lawyers are held to account for abusive legal tactics. I hope that the Government can deliver on that in the fullness of time.

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and will speak in that capacity, but I am also a victim of the Goldsmith foundation, which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referred to. If Members are unaware of what the Goldsmith foundation was all about, it was basically an organisation funded by James Goldsmith that employed Carter-Ruck to identify people who James Goldsmith politically disagreed with, and targeted them. In my instance, I was writing to expose the then MP for my constituency—a Conservative MP—who was being hosted on a series of trips to Iraq by Saddam Hussein and then coming back here to justify the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, where 4,000 people were gassed to death. I was then sued by Carter-Ruck. It was the same issue overall: you just cannot afford to fight. In fact, as a result of that action, I had to hand over the deeds to my property—we simply could not fund it. Even though there was some Labour party support for funding, the general view was that we could not match that sinking pit of funding. That is just one example of how the Goldsmith foundation operated. It is an example of the operation of SLAPPs, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have happened over a long period of time—that was way back in the ’90s. Reference has been made to how the issue of SLAPPs is not just about journalists. It is not, but they have been the main target, and the consequences for some have been devastating because of the legal costs they have had to incur just to try to demonstrate that they have been writing truthful analyses of the events they have been trying to report. SLAPPs stifle free speech and undermine the right of the general public to know information. Exactly as has been said, there is a deterrence effect: they are a form of intimidation against telling the truth. The previous Prime Minister gave a commitment with regard to legislation; unfortunately, that was not in the King’s speech. Now is the time to pick up the pace. I am grateful to the Minister for now offering briefings on how we can move forward, as well as for working on a cross-party basis. The issue for us is that although everyone who has spoken so far welcomed the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, it just applies to economic crime reportage. Therefore, even though some journalists will be protected under that legislation, the individual they have been reporting on will find another matter on which to take action, and as a result the journalist is not protected. The thresholds and criteria of judgments taking place—whereby the judge has to consider the intent of the SLAPP filer and the intent of the defendant—are far too high. We can cite case after case, but the most recent to have caught publicity was that of Dan Neidle. He exposed a firm operating a tax avoidance scam and won the case, but he was left with £146,000 of legal fees. As has been said, there have been various attempts by hon. Members to try to tackle the issue. The Scottish Government have also said that they are awaiting an opportunity to bring forward legislation. The NUJ is part of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition. The proposals put forward include: clear, 10-point criteria to identify SLAPPs; a higher merits threshold for likely success at trial; and a filter mechanism for swift disposal of actions that clearly seek to gag individual journalists and others. We welcome the Government’s engagement now—hopefully including with the NUJ over these coming weeks—so that we can get this legislation on the statute book as rapidly as possible and protect freedom of speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I really welcome being here with friends who are so committed to this issue, and who have been for such a long time. This debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that; it is about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources and access to expensive legal representation. Strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs, as they are so unattractively described—are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens. Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats, as we have heard. The consequence of that is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent. That should concern every Member of this House. One case that demonstrates that danger particularly clearly is that of my constituent, the investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, founder of Sarawak Report. Ms Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia—one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund. Those allegations subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions. But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, Ms Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian political party PAS. The claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial. The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. As Ms Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page; rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through the prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that, eventually, that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. That is why campaigners often say that in a SLAPP, the process becomes the punishment. Let us consider what is at stake. Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world’s most significant corruption scandals might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved, important information might never have reached the public domain and powerful individuals might never have been held accountable; yet our legal system left the burden on the journalist to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Clare did. Many local journalists do not, many campaigners do not, many victims of wrongdoing do not, and many ordinary citizens certainly do not. Increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims; we now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change but the purpose remains the same: to drive up cost, create fear and suppress participation in public life. That is why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, as we have heard, were an important first step. However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection; a survivor speaking about abuse may not, a local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not, and a resident exposing wrongdoing in their community may not. That cannot be the right approach. I am also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made it clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance unmeritorious claims and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity. Those principles are absolutely right, but principles alone are not enough if those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working. That is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand in this scenario. We need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage, we need strong cost protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account. This should not be a partisan issue. Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the Government to work constructively with all colleagues from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves what is holding us back from tackling this, because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle. In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them.

When debating this issue, I crudely used to think of Greenpeace activists taking on multinationals or journalists writing books about oligarchs—Erin Brockovich-style figures exposing injustice—but, as has already been raised, SLAPPs are far more relevant to ordinary people than these cases indicate. Those people include my constituent Jeff Thomson. Jeff moved to Penrith to enjoy his retirement. What he did not expect was the Penrith pong, a foul odour that periodically hangs over the town. Many residents believe the smell is linked to the Omega Proteins rendering plant operated by Leo Group. The company disputes that it is the only source of the odour. Jeff set up a Facebook group called Fresh AIR for Penrith—a place for residents to moan about the pong, share information and learn how to make complaints to the Environment Agency. For running a Facebook page, Jeff received his first legal letter in February 2023 and found himself living under the threat of a defamation claim, with all the stress and fear of legal costs that that brings, all because he spoke up on an issue that he and his neighbours cared about. When I was elected, I said publicly that I wanted to tackle the pong. I grew up in Cumbria and people have talked about the smell for decades, so I was genuinely surprised by how many people warned me not to get involved. People said I might be sued, but until I learned about Jeff’s case and the basis of the action against him, I dismissed those warnings as absurd. I will be honest: when I was first elected, Jeff got right under my skin. Every MP has someone in their inbox with legitimate concerns who is awkward, and some who are extremely awkward. Jeff is one of them. He is very demanding and good at irritating people, but over time I have come to see Jeff in a different light. I now cast Jeff in the tradition of awkward people: the people who pester, who prod and who refuse to let things go. The truth is that without people like Jeff—and there is at least one in every town in my patch—nothing changes. Communities rely on them to keep pushing until someone listens. Jeff also had the courage to fight back, and in June 2026, more than three years after the first legal letter, Omega Proteins and Leo Group finally issued a notice of discontinuance. They agreed to pay Jeff’s legal costs, and he is now free to speak about what he describes as a living hell. But for every Jeff, there will be many out there now who are simply gagged, and their stories will not be told as part of this debate. That is why his story matters. His case shows exactly why we need an anti-SLAPP law. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and Index on Censorship helped my constituent in ways I never could, but they need us to act now. They have set out one crucial step that would have protected Jeff: a simple early dismissal mechanism based on objective signs of abuse—not a subjective test about what was in the claimant’s mind, not years of litigation; just a clear, fast filter that lets a judge say, “This is a public interest issue. This is a citizen speaking about their community. This case should not proceed.” If that mechanism had existed, Jeff would not have spent three years under threat, he would not have faced the stress, cost or fear, and the company would not have been able to use litigation as a tool of intimidation. No constituent should fear being sued simply for speaking about an issue that they believe is wrong. We must ensure that our legal system protects public participation rather than punishes it.

Our society is grossly unequal. Local councils have been hollowed out by years of austerity, people need food banks to survive, kids go to school hungry and people are trapped in low-wage, precarious employment, all while corporations make record profits and the super-rich become even wealthier. Inequality destroys society and ultimately reduces people, places and systems to nothing more than commodities and assets to be used and exploited by the wealthy. That is obvious in our legal system. With SLAPPs, the law can be used as a weapon by the powerful and wealthy, making a mockery of things we like to believe are the foundations of our justice system: fairness, equality, transparency, and the notion that money should have no bearing on someone’s receiving justice. Every debate that we have in this place comes down to the fundamental issue in British politics and society, the same issue we have had for hundreds of years: class. SLAPPs are the embodiment of capitalism and the inequality it creates, because SLAPPs are used to intimidate people, restrict activists and campaigners, and exhaust their time, energy, emotions and, crucially, as we have heard from so many hon. Members, finances—all to suffocate freedom of speech. I wish now to speak about Lucy and Verity Nevitt, who in 2018 reported allegations of sexual assault and rape to the police. Following an investigation, at the end of January 2019 the police decided that they would take no further action due to insufficient evidence. After Lucy and Verity’s cases were dropped, the ladies decided to speak out online to warn others about him. Specialist Metropolitan police officers encouraged them to speak out online, but told them not to name him, to say “alleged” and to call it serious sexual assault instead of rape. However, the sisters decided to say who he was and what he had done. Their attacker responded by bringing a legal action against the sisters, based on accusations of misuse of private information, harassment and defamation. As legal action continued, the sisters became aware of cease and desist letters being sent to CrowdJustice, where they were raising money for the defence, and to supportive MPs. In May 2020, the High Court decided on a number of applications made by Lucy and Verity and by the claimant. The sisters were allowed to lift their anonymity order to allow themselves to be publicly identified, while the court allowed the claimant to remain anonymous. However, the court rejected his application for reporting restrictions. In its intervention to oppose this application, PA Media, then called the Press Association, argued that “the main thrust of the claimant’s application for anonymity is to protect his reputation rather than his privacy”. In her rejection, Justice Steyn stated that “a reporting restriction order is a peremptory order affecting the right to freedom of expression of the press and the public. It is a form of censorship.” After numerous hearings and, obviously, hugely increasing legal costs, all parties agreed on a settlement, allowing Lucy and Verity to speak about what happened to them, as long as they did not name their abuser. Lucy said, “It was a really difficult decision…If we had the money we would have gone the whole way…This wasn’t just about us, there are so many other victims out there.” After founding the Gemini Project in 2018 and fighting back against their attacker’s attempt to shut down the organisation during the legal battle, the sisters’ campaign in support of survivors against SLAPPs and other abusive tactics continues today. As legislators, we in this Chamber are not exempt from blame. We, the state, allow this practice to happen. Our inaction makes us complicit in this inequality. I say to the Minister tonight that we must stop wealth, both corporate and personal, from buying silence and evading accountability and justice. We must do everything in our power to equalise the legal system and wider British society. An end to SLAPPs would be a big step forward towards achieving that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on leading today’s important debate and for setting out comprehensively, but also succinctly—I am very grateful for that—why we are here debating SLAPPs. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on originally securing today’s debate. Our justice system was built on the principle of fair and equal treatment for all who go through it. It should not be a tool for the rich and powerful to systematically silence accusers and avoid accountability, but the growing use of SLAPPs makes it abundantly clear that the system is in fact tilted towards those who harness power or wealth. Victims, journalists, academics, whistleblowers and many more, all attempting to speak truth to power, are being silenced by mechanisms within the justice system that are being weaponised and abused. Those mechanisms are not intended to protect these rich and powerful individuals but are doing just that and preventing access to justice. Lawsuits and threats with immense financial implications and additional time constraints are being used to intimidate and coerce individuals into stepping out of the legal system and stopping their actions. They are keeping cases of immense importance and significance to the public out of the courts, undermining the fair and equitable justice system that we should all strive to achieve. I know many today have been supported by the work of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has done so much to expose these cases and push for the legislative changes that are necessary. The coalition has reported spikes in the number of cases sent to it in recent years, blaming an environment in the UK that is claimant friendly and in favour of those suing. That is not something that we should be proud of. Of course, there have been high-profile cases that have come to light, and some have been alluded to today. Mohamed al-Fayed, the Horizon scandal and Grenfell all provide serious regrets, and attempts to bring those scandals to light were continually blocked from the courts, elongating the pain of their victims and meaning that many never saw justice served at all. One case provided by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition illustrates many of these issues. It is the case of Heidi who, having contracted a building firm to carry out an extension of her home, became concerned about the quality of the work carried out. She terminated the work, but having taken a six-figure loss, made a complaint to the trading standards authority.