King’s Speech

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will get straight to the point and take on board the advice of the Government Whip on duty. I was hugely disappointed not to see SLAPPs legislation included in the gracious Speech. When a primary objective of government is restoring public confidence in democracy and our institutions, it is hard to understand why the Government are curtailing access to jury trials but not legislating to prevent the abuse of our legal system and protect access to justice. Let us be clear: SLAPPs are brought not to protect a claimant’s reputation or rights but to deter, burden or silence public interest speech.

In the UK, which is the destination of choice for this aggressive lawfare, such claims have been brought by sanctioned individuals, hostile state-linked actors, perpetrators of serious misconduct, multinational corporations and other well-resourced claimants. Anyone having to defend themselves against a SLAPP is too often forced into submission because they do not have access to the same kind of money or resource to spend the time and energy engaged in a costly and debilitating fight. This is a serious situation, and legislation is both necessary and urgent.

In the absence of its inclusion in the gracious Speech, I none the less bring some cheering news. I will bring forward a SLAPPs Private Member’s Bill, having been successful in the ballot on Friday. It is important that we learn from both the economic crime Act provisions with regard to SLAPPS and the debates over the previous Private Member’s Bill in how we move forward. I have worked with the Media Lawyers Association and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, and my Bill will cover three principles.

The first is an early dismissal mechanism that examines the characteristics of the claim, not the claimant’s motives, ensuring that a case concerning an act of public participation will not move forward if a claim is not likely to succeed and if the public interest expression outweighs the alleged harm to the claimant. This would allow judges to balance free expression with the claimant’s rights, and to apply well-understood legal principles rather than being bogged down in statutory definitions. The second is express case-management powers to allow for a determination to be made on the papers, with a short oral hearing only where necessary, ensuring that the dismissal mechanism cannot be weaponised by the claimant. The third is a mechanism to deter SLAPPs by awarding costs against claimants on an indemnity basis and protecting defendants from adverse cost orders if the case is a SLAPP.

This approach would protect access to justice, as a claimant with a strong or genuinely arguable case would proceed even if it may potentially suppress an act of public participation. To be clear, this mechanism would not prevent claims from being brought, but would prevent claims without realistic merit consuming disproportionate resources and doing so much harm.

Well over 100 Members on all sides of this House signed a letter to the Prime Minister last month calling for SLAPPs legislation. In 2024, the Conservative Government backed legislation, as did the then Labour Opposition Front Bench. We have the opportunity now to achieve what everyone wants: an end to the abuse of our legal system, which threatens fundamental principles and, at the same time, doing so by maintaining access to justice. The House of Lords is well placed to lead on this, and I want to work with all Members, especially legal colleagues who recognise the need for reform and are rightly concerned about overreach. Today, I simply ask the Minister winding up, and indeed my own and the Lib Dem Front Benches, to confirm that they will work with me in ensuring that, on this occasion, we succeed.