Lloyd Hatton
MP for South Dorset · Labour · United Kingdom
“Q14. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership in the face of two major conflicts. My right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to successfully marshal international support for Ukraine and his work to ensure that our armed forces are not sucked into an aimless and dangerous war with Iran could—in fact, I believe they…”
“I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon.”
“In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans.”
“T6. The Dorset Innovation Park already has a growing ecosystem of defence companies, including BattleLab and a proposed factory, which are developing cutting edge drone technology. The opportunities are truly immense.”
“Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate. As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset.”
The complete record
Every one of 266 lines we hold for Lloyd Hatton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important and timely debate. Yesterday, a High Court judge rejected a statutory review into Powerfuel’s planning application for a proposed waste incinerator on Portland in my constituency. It follows the granting of an environmental permit by the Environment Agency earlier this year. This week’s legal decision is deeply disappointing, but we should never have reached this stage in the first place. Constructing a waste incinerator on Portland makes no sense, for a whole list of reasons. First, there are serious health concerns about building an incinerator so close to a built-up area and to a prison. The proposed location of the incinerator is only a few hundred metres from the prison.”
“I, too, pass on my best wishes to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In South Dorset we urgently need to restore clinics and shift services back into our community hospitals in Weymouth, Portland, Swanage and Wareham. Sadly, the previous Conservative Government hollowed out those community hospitals, meaning that services left our towns to go further and further up the road. Combined with poor transport links, this means that many local people in my patch find it difficult to access the care they need. With that in mind, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to restore clinics and services in our community hospitals, and will he support my campaign to restore the chemotherapy clinic at Wareham community hospital?”
“Q12. South Dorset is ready to play its part in making Britain a clean energy superpower, but after 14 years of Conservative failure, there are many untapped opportunities on our doorstep. Green investment opportunities such as Portwind, Morwind and a hydrogen storage hub are all coming down the track, so can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will work with the Crown court on these projects, invest in key infrastructure and ensure that South Dorset’s green energy potential is hardwired into our plan for change?”
“T3. The previous Government failed to build much-needed new school buildings at Dorset studio school, and failed for years to open the proposed Osprey Quay special school for children with special educational needs. Dorset studio school urgently needs a new home, and families in my patch are hugely in need of a SEND school at the Osprey Quay site, so can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to get those two crucial projects over the line?”
“As the Prime Minister rightly stated in his victory speech in the early hours: “The fight for trust is the battle that defines our age.” I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I look forward to hearing from the Government and from hon. Members here today exactly how we can win this crucial battle. Only by doing so can we protect democracy, clean up our politics and rebuild trust with the public.”
“The Government should also look closely at capping donations and spending, perhaps in line with recommendations put forward by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. Smart tweaks to existing regulations, such as increasing fining powers, lowering reporting thresholds and capping spending limits, do not require primary legislation. Those changes could be enacted quickly and still have a significant impact on cleaning up our politics and ensuring that our parties are all free from suspect donations. Finally, I sincerely hope that Ministers will look closely at the role that shell companies play in allowing opaque donations to be made here in the UK, often originating from overseas. I am proud that this Labour Government were elected on a mandate to restore integrity in politics.”
“Unfortunately, the previous Government only made matters worse when they stripped the Electoral Commission, which is tasked with regulating political finance, of its independence and further opened the floodgates to mega-donations by drastically increasing spending limits during election periods by around 80%. Strengthening the rules around donations to political parties is a manifesto commitment of this new Government. I know that the Government and Ministers are committed to restoring trust and protecting British democracy, so I hope they will act swiftly on that commitment by restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission and empowering it to impose much larger fines.”
“How do we go about toughening up the rules? First, we close the loopholes I have outlined once and for all and ensure that companies are able to make donations only from profit made in the UK in the last two years, as well as introducing a requirement for political parties to identify the true source of donors’ funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules, because even if Elon Musk were ever to breach election law, why would he care? The maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose is just £20,000—not even small change to the world’s richest man.”
“Although that rumour has not yet come to pass, the risk that it poses to the integrity of our democracy cannot be overstated. I repeat: it should not be this easy to pump money into British politics, especially from halfway across the world. Our democratic institutions and elections should never be the plaything of a billionaire who cannot even vote in a British election, and a UK-registered company should not be a convenient vehicle to allow them to make such a donation. Even the perception that our political parties are captured by those with deep pockets has a corrosive effect on public trust in politics and in us as politicians. At a time when that trust is regretfully at a historically low level, we need to tackle that perception head-on and show that our politics is not for sale and cannot be unduly influenced.”
“249.] I fear that our unhealthy dependence on a handful of large donors also poses a risk of undue influence and capture by narrow vested interests. We know that of the £85 million of private donations made in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 mega-donors, each giving well over £1 million. Just recently, one would-be mega-donor dominated headlines for that very reason. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and not a British citizen, was giving “serious thought” to donating millions of pounds to a British political party—Reform UK. As a South African-born billionaire who lives in the United States, Elon Musk cannot legally make a personal donation to a British political party, but, as we know, he could easily go through the UK subsidiaries of his various companies.”
“In 2020, a report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee identified that multiple members of the Russian elite with links to Vladimir Putin had tried to donate or successfully donated to British political parties. Later, in 2022, MI5 warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to influence parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist party. In 2023, concerns were raised in Parliament about alleged links between the Chinese Communist party and party fundraising. The then Minister of State for Policing, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), noted that “all political parties need to be alert to the danger of representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or influence their activities.” —[ Official Report , 19 April 2023; Vol. 731, c.”
“It should not be that easy to pump money into British politics behind a layer of corporate secrecy. Donations that could come from anyone, anywhere pose a significant threat to the security and integrity of our democratic system. Foreign interference in British democracy and elections is a direct attack on our sovereignty, our national interest and our vital democratic institutions. We have been warned about the problem for many years. A series of independent review bodies and the security services have sounded the alarm time and again. They have made it clear that risks are posed by opaque donations coming in from overseas.”
“Unfortunately, the UK’s political finance rules, designed to block foreign donations and dirty money from seeping into political parties, are ripe for abuse and riddled with loopholes. Hostile state actors, kleptocrats and international billionaires are easily able to sidestep the UK’s permissibility rules and funnel money, via UK-registered shell companies, into our political parties. As it stands, a British company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, even if the company has not generated sufficient funds to support that same donation. That means that foreign actors or any mystery donor could legitimately use shell companies as a conduit to channel money into political parties here in the UK. This is symbolic of a much bigger problem.”
“Our pluralistic democracy depends on lively and active political parties that can campaign and engage with the public. Indeed, tomorrow evening I will be back out on the doorstep, clipboard and leaflets in hand, listening to voters and campaigning with my local Labour party. Those very activities would be impossible without political donations. However, far too often the financing of political parties involves suspect donations making their way into party coffers. And the numbers are not small. Research by Transparency International found that £115 million in donations—almost £1 in every £10 of reported donations —came from unknown or questionable sources between 2021 and 2024. How has that been allowed to happen?”
“Before I start my remarks, I pay tribute to everything that was said from the Dispatch Box in the last debate by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). This House and our Government are stronger, more effective and more compassionate because of her contribution and her work. I begin by declaring an interest: I am a member of a political party. I have spent many years actively involved in party politics as a campaigner, a local councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, so I know that political parties sit at the centre of our political landscape and that they are key pillars in our elections and our broader democratic system. Of course, those parties need funding to fulfil their day-to-day functions and to contest elections.”
“I beg to move, That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of our democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.”
“Resolved , That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.”
“I believe that one can support a policy such as increasing defence spending to 2.5% without somehow being in hock to or in the pocket of the military industrial complex, as he put it. That is a gross oversimplification, and I gently remind him of that. Finally, I thank the Minister for her contribution. I welcome the Government’s commitment to setting out their thinking on this important issue later this year. I thank her for reconfirming that foreign donations have no place in British politics and for making it clear that the Government agree about the need for stronger safeguards. The Electoral Commission will play a crucial role in this. We must ensure that it is fully independent. Question put and agreed to.”
“Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Yes she is!”] Oh, she is. Apologies—she has been playing musical chairs. I thank her for highlighting what is at stake if we fail to defend our vibrant democracy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for outlining robustly the risks posed by Russian oligarchs and their dirty money. We must stand up against it. Before I bring my remarks to a close, I gently say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that this is an important discussion—I think we all agree on that—but we must always be driven by facts and evidence. Oversimplifying the arguments means that we will not get the right outcomes.”
“I thank all Members for a thoughtful and constructive debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for their particularly thoughtful contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his powerful remarks about the relationship between donations and public trust, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his consensus-driven contribution. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for outlining the urgent need for change—we cannot keep waiting for reform to materialise—and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for setting out the important context of our global responsibility to fight dirty money and clean up politics. I thank my hon.”
“T5. Eden Portland is an exciting proposal for my community and, much like the Eden Project in Cornwall and Morecambe, it would be a hub for education and ecology. If delivered, it would boost investment and create well-paid jobs. I know that Ministers agree that this could be a real success story, so will they meet me and the team at Eden Portland, alongside colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the council, to discuss how we can deliver this exciting project?”
“This Labour Government are acting now to revitalise our town centres, placing local communities at the centre of that change and making sure that high streets like mine in Weymouth continue to be the beating heart of our communities.”
“I am really pleased that the Government have given local councils direct powers to rent out vacant properties. That will enable local people and businesses to shape the future of the high street, and to make sure that it serves local needs and preserves and champions existing businesses. In particular, I am pleased that this measure could deliver targeted support for community ownership. That means that, with Government guidance, councils can identify assets that are most likely to deliver social, economic and cultural benefits locally with a community ownership model. That is a really welcome move, and I hope to see that in my South Dorset constituency and town centres right across the country.”
“Many businesses are understandably concerned about what the falling footfall means for their viability. They are calling for innovative solutions to breathe new life into our town centres, and that is exactly what high street rental auctions will help to deliver. They will revitalise our town centres and put the community at the centre of the revitalisation. The local business improvement district in Weymouth and Portland and the chamber of commerce have been working tirelessly to rejuvenate Weymouth town centre. They have had a great deal of success so far, but they are clear that we must go further. High street rental auctions are just one tool in our box, but they cannot be the only way to empower local businesses and business groups, such as the BID and the chamber of commerce, to revitalise the town centre.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), a fellow Dorset Member of Parliament, for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce high street rental auctions. My constituency is no exception to the trend of closing high street businesses and vacant properties that we have sadly seen up and down the country. My first job growing up was serving fish and chips at the Marlboro, a popular fish and chip shop by the harbour in Weymouth. Since that time, and following the pandemic and the rise of online shopping, it has been depressing to see town centres such as Weymouth struggle to maintain their vibrant culture and footfall.”
“The BVI will soon close the consultation on its proposal to grant only limited access to a register of beneficial ownership. That proposal means that it will be virtually impossible for even a select few to trace those using the BVI as a place to secretly stash their cash, and this comes some five years after the first deadline to set up a register was missed. I know that the Secretary of State agrees that sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to combating illicit finance, so what steps is he taking to ensure that the BVI establishes a genuine and fully transparent register of beneficial ownership?”
“T7. Today we learned not only that Yevgeny Prigozhin, a sanctioned warlord, used frozen funds to make legal threats to silence a British journalist, but that the enablers of this textbook example of lawfare have since gone unpunished, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority ruling that Prigozhin’s lawyers “broke no rules”. That inaction, in the face of such clear-cut wrongdoing, shows that our current framework is inadequate. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to create a tough deterrent against harmful lawfare tactics, particularly when they are deployed by insidious individuals like Prigozhin?”
“It is really important that we widen the discussion to talk about not only stemming the loss of pharmacies, but how we can put pharmacies back. In the south-west, community hospitals would act as an excellent venue for them. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be looking at community hospitals as a potential venue for new pharmacies, so that they are a bit of a one-stop shop where people can access healthcare and advice?”
“Recent BBC news analysis found that burning household rubbish in waste incinerators is the dirtiest way that the UK produces power. When might the relevant Minister update the House on exactly how and when we will move away from harmful incinerators? Will the Government support my campaign to implement a moratorium on building new incinerators in South Dorset and nationwide?”
“T5. The previous Conservative Government exposed themselves to unprecedented levels of corruption and cronyism when delivering contracts during the pandemic. Recent analysis has shown that £1 in every £3 spent went on high-risk contracts, worth more than £15 billion. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are always making procurement decisions that are in the public interest, avoiding unmanaged and unmitigated conflicts? What will they do to ensure that taxpayers’ money is always spent wisely?”
“Amazon currently makes hundreds of millions of pounds in profits in the UK each year, and often gets away with paying little to no corporation tax. Meanwhile, high street businesses in Weymouth, Portland and Swanage in my constituency pay their fair share. To level the playing field, will the Chancellor consider further measures to ensure that online giants always pay their fair share of tax? I fear that, without action, our high streets will always be at an unfair disadvantage.”
“What I have been struck by in recent weeks as I have listened to Members from across the House is the clear agreement that the current situation is neither sustainable nor dignified. Almost everyone in this House agrees that the status quo is unacceptable in terms of dignity, palliative care and end of life. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is about how we depart from the unacceptable situation that we currently face? Is today’s vote not the first stage of an important discussion about we improve the end of life for hundreds and hundreds of people across this country?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. The point he makes is really important: in rural and coastal communities, testing services and public health awareness can often feel particularly remote. Looking at how we use primary care, particularly community hospitals and GP surgeries, will be essential to improving testing and public awareness. Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing this out into communities is essential to ensuring that take-up is just as good in a rural or coastal community as it is in a big town or city?”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”