Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Davis Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to keep it brief and stick with procedure.

The decision we are taking today must be, for most Members, one of the most painful decisions. It certainly is for me. I am someone who has changed his position. I am a believer in the sanctity of life, but I am also an antagonist to torture and misery at the end of life. Accordingly, I intend to vote for the Bill on Second Reading. I say to those who have made procedural comments that Second Reading is a point of principle, not a point of conclusion. I have changed my position because since the scandal of Dr Shipman and the murders he carried out, the behaviour of the health service has changed. I have witnessed, with constituents in particular, any number of people who have died slowly and in agony beyond the reach of palliative care—the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) made the point brilliantly—so that no matter how well we do it, we cannot fix that problem.

Secondly, I am going to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse): it is not insulting to critique what others who have tried this have done. The countries that have tried this provide a wide range of examples and outcomes. If on Third Reading I think that the outcome we are heading towards is Belgium, I will vote against; and if the outcome is Canada, I will probably vote against. If it is Australia, I will vote in favour. That is what the next stage of this process is about.

I say to both the Bill’s sponsors that it has a number of areas that they know I think they have to put right—about a dozen, in truth.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

I am afraid not, as I have only five minutes.

I will pick one of those areas, as it is technical and awkward. Clause 4(2) appears to give doctors the right to initiate the process. But after the “Do not resuscitate” scandal during the covid crisis, I do not want that at any price—I do not want the state initiating this process. That is critical for me. I am really making the point that the decision on Second Reading is about principle, not outcome.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has said that she will work hard to make the Committee work. I am sure she will, and she may succeed. But I say this to the Government. I understand perfectly well that they are trying to maintain a route of strict neutrality, but there is a distinction between neutrality and responsibility. They need to focus on responsibility. This Bill is more important than most of the Bills in their manifesto; I am not trying to be rude. Is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) here? He got mobbed over breakfast by people talking about this. More people in the Dog and Duck care about this than they do about most other things that we are doing, so it deserves four days on Report in Government time over the course of several weeks.

We do not need a royal commission. The House can do this, but it needs to be given the option. I say to the Government that the path of responsibility is to give us the time to get this right. If we get it right, it will be one of the things that we can be proudest of in the coming years. I reiterate that I want the Bill to succeed. It is more important than most Bills that we handle. It cannot be dealt with in five hours here and a few hours in Committee. I will vote for it today, but I want the Government to help me be able to vote for a good Bill at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask Members to please face the Chair, so that we can pick them up on the microphones.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am aware from correspondence that I have received, as the Member of Parliament for Swindon South, that there are significant concerns about the collapse of law firms such as SSB Solicitors, Axiom Law and McClure. As my hon. Friend said, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is looking at this, as is the Legal Services Board, and I shall be happy to speak to her further to provide an update.

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary will be aware that the Criminal Cases Review Commission took 17 years to overturn the conviction of Andrew Malkinson, an innocent man, even though DNA evidence exonerating him was available from the fourth year; and his is not the only such case. Has the Minister any intention of addressing the resources, regulation and management of the CCRC to ensure that innocent people are not left incarcerated for many years?

[Heidi Alexander]

What happened to Mr Malkinson is appalling, both for him and for the victim of the crime. It is vital that lessons are learned. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, following the publication of the Henley review of the CCRC’s handling of Mr Malkinson’s case, the Lord Chancellor’s view is that the current chair is unfit to fulfil her duties. As for resources, the amount that the CCRC has received in recent years has risen, and we will continue to keep that under review.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

The total number of IPPs is slightly higher than that but, looking into the data, the really significant factor is that, whereas there were some 6,000 IPP prisoners in 2012, the number who have not been released is down to around 1,200. Our action plan tries to address that. Our reforms are designed to ensure that, when IPP prisoners are released, they do not face a licence period of 10 years, which can lead to them being recalled at any time. Reducing it to three years is a humane and sensible way of trying to erase this stain on the conscience of our justice system.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Yesterday, The New Yorker published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and the competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of the trial. The article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice. Will the Lord Chancellor look into this matter and report back to the House?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this. Court orders must be obeyed, and a person can apply to the court for them to be removed. That will need to take place in the normal course of events.

On the Lucy Letby case, I simply make the point that juries’ verdicts must be respected. If there are grounds for an appeal, that should take place in the normal way.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I tabled this private Member’s Bill to tackle SLAPPs—strategic litigation, or lawsuits, against public participation—in all their forms, so that any abuse of litigation to attack free speech in the public interest, regardless of subject matter, can be addressed through the courts.

The Bill has had a long gestation. On Second Reading on 23 February, the version that I tabled, with Government support, was unanimously agreed by the House, but hon. Members clearly expressed some concerns and made some constructive comments. I am pleased to say that since Second Reading, a quite remarkable and very positive series of discussions has taken place between the Ministry of Justice and me, and between us and a number of stakeholder bodies. There have also been formal and informal discussions with Members who have taken a keen interest in the subject for a long time, in particular the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The result has been not total, but a high degree of consensus on quite difficult and intense issues.

I remind everyone that SLAPPs are abusive or threatened lawsuits that are designed to inhibit free speech. These hostile lawsuits masquerade as genuine claims, but their underlying objectives are far more sinister. Such cases are often brought by powerful individuals and corporations with the aim of avoiding scrutiny by shutting down critical voices that seek to hold them accountable.

Protecting freedom of speech in the public interest is something that all parties in Parliament hold in high esteem. In all debates in this House and in the other place, there has been broad consensus on the need for reform to tackle the harmful effect of SLAPPs. As champions of media freedom, we must ensure that the free press is never made so vulnerable that it resorts to self-censorship on vital matters in the public interest. Grounded, well-researched investigative reporting must be protected, not reined in for fear of legal action. Of course, such protections cannot and must not come at the expense of access to justice, but the fact that claimants can currently exploit the system means that that important balance has not been struck. I have worked with the Government to make sure that the approach underpinning the Bill achieves the necessary protections and balances.

Clause 1 provides that rules of court must be made to provide a means of dismissing SLAPP cases at an early stage. The provisions require that rules are developed to make sure that a claim can be struck out where the court has determined, first, that a claim is a SLAPP, and secondly that the claimant has failed to show that their claim is more likely than not to succeed at trial. That will ensure that a court has the power to dismiss SLAPP claims at the earliest possible opportunity, thereby protecting defendants from unnecessary and intimidatory litigation that is used to silence and suppress articles, investigations and reporting being conducted in the public interest.

The rules of court will also establish the appropriate procedure to be followed so that Parliament’s intention to prevent the harm of SLAPPs is properly achieved in such cases. Subsections (2) and (3) provide that the rules will be able to identify what evidence will be considered and the degree to which it will be tested by the court in determining the various matters that it has to address, including the use of presumptions with respect to matters of fact. I will turn shortly to other provisions that will assist the judge, for example by setting out common attributes and behaviours that are characteristic of SLAPP-style litigation.

Clause 1(4) provides for the development of rules to establish costs protection for defendants in cases identified as SLAPPs. The rules will provide that the court must not order the defendant to cover the costs of the claimant in SLAPP cases, unless they themselves have behaved inappropriately. The purpose of this provision is to protect defendants from the exorbitant costs that are currently racked up by claimants in such cases, and from the use of the threat of such costs to intimidate them.

At present, the risks of high costs often force defendants to abandon their legitimate defence against challenges to important reporting in the public interest, because of fear of financial ruin. That is wrong and must be put right. Defendants in SLAPP cases will often not have the same means available to them as claimants; they are therefore commonly intimidated into abandoning cases and/or reporting, even when they know the story in question to be true. They often find that the risks of adverse costs orders, which can result in great personal debt, including having to sell their home or go through bankruptcy, are far too great to contemplate, even for the sake of important stories.

I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Caerphilly for his Bill. It has been long in the coming, but it deals with a very important problem, and it is brilliant that he has actually brought it to the House. If I may say so, he has managed it in a formidably diplomatic way, given the sometimes quite difficult arguments that have gone on. My unreserved congratulations go to him.

The hon. Gentleman has done a brilliant job of outlining the point of the Bill, so I will not reiterate that, save to say that it is a difficult and technical Bill. We are balancing rights—the right to sue for defamation versus the right not to be oppressed and to enjoy free speech—and that is not easy to do. It is a subtle problem. Quite properly, the legal profession, the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice want to maintain that balance. They are very sensitive about that, but we should also remember that the right to sue for defamation is pretty much a rich man’s right. Very few of my constituents will exercise it, and very few people in this room will exercise it—perhaps one or two are rich enough. Nevertheless, it is important that it is maintained; I accept that without reserve.

It is understandable that the Ministry of Justice, in its advice on the Bill, seeks to compromise. I generally agree with compromise, but not with compromise between right and wrong. It has to be said that the Ministry will be being lobbied—with how much effect I cannot say—by the Society of Media Lawyers, including such leading lights as Carter-Ruck, Mishcon de Reya and Schillings, the very people who have created the problem that we are now trying to resolve. People have created a multimillion-pound industry out of oppressing the right to freedom of speech and making London the global capital of that. I could pick a ruder word for it, but I will just say that it is the global capital of SLAPPs.

I have one proposal to put to a vote, but first I want to talk a little about the vagaries of the Bill. Throughout all our discussions, the common theme has been, “How will the judge interpret this phrase, or this clause, in the context of what we are trying to do?” We are trying to protect freedom of speech and, at the same time, people’s right to look after their own reputation in court.

New clause 1 aims to give judges guidance on interpretation and tell them what the high priority of the Bill is. I will read out the clause in full:

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the ability of individuals and organisations to participate in public debate, advance accountability, and speak out on matters of public interest, and to prevent the use of the courts to undermine these rights through abusive legal action.

(2) Provisions in this Act should be broadly construed and applied to advance the purpose defined in subsection (1).”

I ask the Committee to see that as effectively an instruction to the judges as to how broadly they should interpret the Bill when it becomes an Act. I will press no amendments other than new clause 1 to a vote, because there is consensus on almost everything.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly not only on securing this opportunity, but on working—as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said—with formidable diplomacy to steer us to the Bill we have today.

The Bill is unusual in having commanded a great deal of cross-party consensus, ever since the first debate that the right hon. Member and I had the privilege of sponsoring in the House two or three years ago. It is not common to move this quickly from a Backbench Business debate to legislation. That is to be commended; indeed, it is why the Back Benches in this place should be strengthened further and given far more opportunities to legislate.

The Bill builds on an amendment that I had the privilege to move to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It is outrageous that our courts are being used as arenas of silence to shut down free speech. We have become a place where oligarchs from around the world choose to come, in order to silence truth tellers and journalists who are providing an incredibly important public service.

The Bill is an important step forward, but it is only a step. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden says, it cannot be the full solution. In particular, it will not address the plague of pre-litigation action. The number of journalists working in and around this place who tell us of legal letters being sent when they get a whiff of a story to close it down shows that this is a really significant problem. Once the Bill passes, we will need to understand what more can be done to stop the chilling effect of pre-litigation action.

New clause 1 provides us with an important debate. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right to say that part of the delicacy of the Bill relates to making sure that judges have full sight of Parliament’s intention. The debates we have in this place will be unusually important in interpreting and applying the Bill in the courts, so he is absolutely right to say that subsection (1) sets out the basic purpose of the Bill: to maximise the latitude for free speech, truth telling, investigations and good journalism, for which this country is rightly famous. If that comes at the cost of the Ministry of Justice opposing the Bill and killing it today, it will be an unfortunate consequence.

I hope that the Committee can unite around a solution that the Government can support, so that the Bill becomes law. This debate is important, and I hope it will run on here and in the other place to ensure we have a balancing test that secures the objectives of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, without incurring a ministerial roadblock in the shape of the Ministry of Justice.

[Sir David Davis]

There were two possible approaches to this Bill. One was what we have before us, which is quite complex but seeks to address issues piece by piece; the other was what is known as the Ontario option, which effectively puts in place a parallel to the American first amendment. One of the reasons why new clause 1 is important is that it straddles those approaches. It does not take us down the first amendment and constitutional route, but it does make it clear what we are trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

Let me take this opportunity to address two points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. First, on pre-litigation issues, I will have to write to him to ensure that I get correct the rights that the Lord Chancellor, the Department or the courts will have before a matter gets to court. I will make sure that I get the details so that I do not misinform him.

We cannot support new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. As I have said to him, I am more than happy, between now and Report, to sit down and try to flesh out where we can find more agreement, but at this stage we cannot support the new clause. While we support the whole thrust of what he is trying to achieve, we feel that the Bill has actually—

[Sir David Davis]

The Minister has now said twice that the Government support the thrust of new clause 1. Given the consensus that we have maintained from the beginning, I would rather not divide the Committee. Alongside me, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has been the primary driver on this issue since—I cannot remember the actual date, but it was the day after I called for Boris to go. That is the new reference point: not anno Domini, but anno B, after Boris.

If the Minister agrees with the thrust of the new clause, and if he will come back on Report with an equivalent that makes it plain to the judges what the Bill proposes, I will not press it—but I do need that undertaking.

[Mike Freer]

I can give the undertaking that I will work with my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill to try to ensure that the Bill meets those objectives. We believe that the Bill creates a balance of rights and responsibilities that ensures that we protect free speech while balancing the rights of both claimants and defendants, so that the bad behaviour that has been documented is addressed. Also, the examples of bad behaviour in the Bill and the explanatory notes are not exhaustive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I think the whole Bill supports the thrust of protecting freedom of speech. Equally, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned, we do not have a first amendment, so there is a nervousness about going down a path of establishing some form of first amendment, as the Americans have. We want to ensure that the Bill maintains a balance between claimants and defendants while protecting defendants who cannot protect themselves from the pernicious behaviour that we have all seen and read about.

[Sir David Davis]

I raised the first amendment issue, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was responding to that. This is not a first amendment clause at all. The Minister knows as well as I do that, throughout the debate, the argument has been about how the judges will interpret every clause. The fact that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will move the other amendments today indicates that we did not get that balance right in the beginning; indeed, we might have made the problem worse. That is what this is about.

As I said, I do not want to divide the Committee if I can avoid it, and I seek an undertaking from the Minister. The alternative is to bring the new clause back on Report and then whip the thing on behalf of our own argument.

[Mike Freer]

I repeat my offer to my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill: I am happy to discuss how we ensure that we come to an agreement that the Bill delivers what they want to achieve. However, we believe that new clause 1 is not necessary. Of course, if they believe that the Bill still needs it, my right hon. Friend has the right to move it during the remaining stages.

The offer is there: let us try to work together to see whether we can bridge the gap and persuade each other that we are right. At this point, the Department’s view is that the Bill creates a balance of rights and responsibilities while addressing the bad behaviour and listing, but not exhaustively listing, what bad behaviour will be curtailed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

It was certainly not the view of the hon. Member for Caerphilly or the Department that the amendments should be accepted, because we felt that the arguments put forward by the Law Society were not supported and that our Bill created a careful balance. In a nutshell, we did not agree with what the Law Society put forward—neither the amendments nor that particular argument. We think the Bill creates a careful balance between claimants and defendants, and we support it.

[Sir David Davis]

On a point of order, Ms Elliott. I have listened to the Minister carefully, and my interpretation is that he will seek to resolve this problem before Report. I will therefore not press new clause 1 today and will seek consensus across the board. However, I give notice that if we do not resolve this issue, it will come back on Report.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Would Wayne David like to respond?

[Wayne David]

What can I say? We have had an excellent discussion this morning. It has been very good indeed and has in many ways got to the core of the issue. I want to genuinely thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for prompting this excellent debate through his new clause. As I said, I brought forward this Bill to tackle SLAPPs in all their forms and provide protection for free speech in the public interest. The fact that SLAPP claimants can misuse the justice system shows that the right balance between access to justice and protections against abuse of process is currently not being struck. The Bill must ensure that balance, and it has.

I want to stress that the Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that all litigants are able to properly and fairly exercise their rights of access to justice. It will ensure that attempts by claimants to misuse the justice system in order to limit the rights of defendants to free speech on matters in the public interest cannot succeed. This point is crucial: it will do so without unduly and unfairly preventing claimants from achieving their own rights, such as the right to not be defamed.

New clause 1, however, risks and draws into question that carefully balanced approach. It is undoubtedly well-intentioned and many of us would agree with the sentiments expressed this morning, but it runs a risk of undermining the efficacy of the Bill as a whole; that is, of course, opposite to the intention of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The new clause risks that by introducing new and uncertain concepts into domestic law, such as the right to public participation, and requiring a supremacy of those concepts over other established rights. These are big and important issues.

[Sir David Davis]

I am afraid that, perhaps for the first time in all this, we disagree on something. The right to free speech and public participation is not new in British law: it goes back to Magna Carta.

[Wayne David]

I am not familiar with Magna Carta, but I suspect our common law has moved on somewhat since then.

The uncertainty about the scope and effect of the new clause also raises the somewhat unfortunate spectre of new and unexpected avenues for litigation, when these measures are intended to do the exact opposite. I am clear that the drafting of the Bill makes its purpose transparent. It is a purpose that is consistent with rights already established in domestic and international law and that addresses the fundamental need to ensure access to justice for both claimants and defendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Davis]

He’s the good cop.

[Wayne David]

This is a crucial test, which will be addressed, I am certain, in clauses that we have yet to discuss. There is much to be said for providing a clarification, and that is one of the central things that we will come on to in a few moments’ time.

[Wayne David]

In fairness, the Bill’s intention is clearly expressed in the clauses that we have before us. I accept that the discussion will be ongoing; nobody is saying that it is the end of the matter, but as things stand, I think it is fair to say that there has been a great deal of discussion and a great deal of investigation of different options, and that this is the best consensual position that we have established to date. Although of course the debate will continue, I have yet to be persuaded that there is a sound and definitive case for changing what we have before us.

I believe that the Bill provides a sound framework and guidance to our independent judiciary to deal with the serious harm that SLAPPs can cause. Judges are well versed in interpreting provisions, assessing evidence and, ultimately, ensuring that justice is done. I believe very strongly that we must be careful here, because unclear direction or too much direction risks creating difficulties—more difficulties than it resolves. Words have to be precise.

Although I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for his continued commitment on the issue of SLAPPs and his consideration of the Bill, I consider that new clause 1 at the moment goes a bit too far. It risks undermining, and certainly draws into question, the careful balance that the Bill strikes, as well as the efficacy of the provisions, and it potentially complicates unnecessarily the Bill’s onward passage, and not just in this House; let us remember that it has to go to the other House as well.

Clarification is always needed, and the debate will be ongoing. I understand that the Government are prepared to provide clarification in the appropriate place, such as the explanatory notes. That is extremely important, because the explanatory notes provide the clarification for the Bill and add substantial meaning to it.

[Sir David Davis]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have viewed many court cases in my time and I have heard judges refer explicitly on many occasions to the wording of the law, but I have never yet heard them refer to explanatory notes?

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman might not have heard judges refer explicitly to explanatory notes, but I know it to be a fact that judges quite regularly provide interpretations and receive information derived from them, so I suggest to him that explanatory notes are very, very important. The two—the legislation itself and the Government’s official explanatory notes—should go in tandem.

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has decided not to press his new clause. I can assure him that I, like the Minister, will ensure that the discussion continues, because this is an important debate. We have had a good discussion this morning; this is not the end of the matter, but it is important at this point to affirm that we stand by what has been put forward. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause, because it would be unfortunate to divide the Committee on an issue on which there is so much genuine understanding and consensus. I thank him for not pressing it, and I give a commitment that the debate will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Meaning of “SLAPP” claim

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I will seek clarification, as I am a layperson. My understanding is that the judge’s decision is definitive and will achieve the desired effect.

The introduction of reasonableness will give the court a clear ability to draw conclusions about a claimant’s intention from all the objective evidence before it. That evidence will be from both the claimant and the defendant, and its extent will be controlled by the court. The court will also be able to determine the degree to which it is tested, and will therefore be in a proper position to infer from it whether the necessary intention from the claimant is present, so as to warrant the case being found to be a SLAPP. Amendments 2 and 5 will assist courts in ensuring that an objective and fair assessment is made of whether the case is a SLAPP.

Amendments 6 and 7 clarify the misconduct element of the test to decide whether a claim is a SLAPP. They respond to concerns from stakeholders who said that the original formulation of the clause suggested that there is a level of harassment, alarm and distress that is acceptable to pursue as a tactic to cause intimidation in conducting litigation. That was never the intention, and I wish to make that point firmly and very clearly.

The intention of the clause is to isolate claimants who are perpetrating misconduct in the way in which they are pursuing their claim. It will separate those who are using litigation as a weapon from those who have a legitimate grievance and are behaving properly in conducting their case. These amendments will mean that a defendant will be able to assert that, through improper behaviour, a claimant has caused them harm. In making that claim, the defendant will be able to invoke harm of any sort, including but not limited to harm, distress, expense, inconvenience or harassment. I consider that this new formulation will assuage the legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders and parliamentarians alike. It is therefore extremely important.

[Sir David Davis]

In many ways, this goes to the heart of the argument that we have had throughout all this. The truth of the matter is that anybody in receipt of normal judicial action in an ordinary defamation case faces distress and expense. A person who receives a lawyer’s letter at the beginning of such a claim suffers, if not a nervous breakdown, then something quite close to it, so this is quite difficult to elucidate. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that point.

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point that gets to the heart of the Bill. Such cases are extremely stressful and cause all manner of feelings, which are clearly indicated here, and often enormous expense. One of the things that is recognised in this Bill is that in many cases that is quite deliberate. SLAPP cases are often designed to cause a maximum amount of distress, alarm and expense to defendants. That is precisely what we want to iron out of the system to introduce an objective fairness, so that cases are really judged on their merits and not on what quite often happens behind the scenes. I consider this new formulation to be much stronger than what we initially had in mind, and it is therefore very important and appropriate. I very much hope that it receives the full support of this Committee.

Finally, amendment 10 seeks to clarify the scope of “public interest” as set out in clause 2(3). That is achieved by amending the language so that it is clear that the list of matters in the “public interest” is not exhaustive. This amendment will assist the court in the identification of SLAPP claims and ensure that all relevant claims can be dealt with under the scope of this Bill. It brings greater clarity to the definition of “public interest” in the Bill and addresses concerns from parliamentarians that the Bill would not achieve its aim of identifying SLAPP claims as currently drafted. I commend amendment 10 to the Committee.

For completeness, I note that clause 3 will amend the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 by removing the provisions for SLAPPs that relate to economic crime. Sections 194 and 195 of the ECCTA are no longer required as this Bill’s provisions will capture all SLAPPs, including those that feature an element of economic crime. The measures in this Bill will deal with SLAPPs in the round, and not just those related to economic crime currently contained in the 2023 Act. In other words, this is a holistic approach that encompasses all SLAPPs and should be recognised as such.

Clause 4 sets out the legal jurisdictions to which the provisions will apply and the commencement of this legislation. The Bill applies only to England and Wales, as justice is a devolved matter, and it will be for the Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to consider whether and how they wish to legislate to address the challenges that SLAPPs represent in their own jurisdictions; I very much hope that they will follow our good example. Although the Bill will take effect two months after Royal Assent, it will be implemented in full once the necessary rules of court have been developed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee; those will come into force through secondary legislation.

On that basis, I commend clause 2, as amended by the amendments in my name, and clauses 3 and 4 to the Committee.

[Sir David Davis]

I have just looked with amusement at the selection list. The grouping of amendments under clause 2 reads:

“1 [David] + 11 [Davis]…10 [David] + 12 [Davis]”

I am not responsible for all of them—the hon. Member for Caerphilly and I are brothers in arms, but not brothers. I agree with every single amendment that he has tabled in his name; they will all improve the Bill. They also demonstrate that the Bill was very flawed before, as indeed was the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, to which there is also an amendment here. I am afraid that that demonstrates that the Government’s original approach was not as thought-through as it should have been.

The two amendments in my name both seek to do the same thing: to broaden the view of the judge, when they are making a ruling on whether a case is a SLAPP case, to the extrajudicial behaviour outside the court room, included in which is the selection of forum. If someone were to pursue a court case in London rather than in their domestic court, that would be an indication that they were seeking to exploit our laws in pursuit of a SLAPP.

In some ways, the point about extrajudicial action is even more important. It is that the actions taken against the individuals on the receiving end of SLAPPs are intimidatory and bullying in a whole series of extrajudicial ways. I should think everybody on the Committee knows about the cases of Tom Burgis, Catherine Belton and our erstwhile colleague Charlotte Leslie. Intimidatory social media campaigns, threatening phone calls, not-so-subtle surveillance, hacking—the list goes on and on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I can be fairly brief, as harmony appears to have broken out across the Committee. I would not want to disturb that harmony in any way.

[Sir David Davis]

Go on!

[Andy Slaughter]

Well, just a little, maybe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his Bill and particularly on his amendments. They not only clarify the Bill but strengthen it a great deal, especially in relation to the objective test, which, as we discussed at some length on Second Reading, is a necessary change. Without the amendments, the danger is that one of the vices that the Bill seeks to prevent would become apparent in another way—through satellite or preliminary litigation—because we were trying to delve down into what was in the mind of a claimant in the process of bringing a suit. That is a good start.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned pre-litigation risks about actual harassment of defendants and other ways of manipulating the court processes. I find amendment 12, which he tabled, attractive from that point of view. It certainly is the case, and libel cases are the best example, that whole swathes of defendants’ lives can be taken up simply by the manipulation of the litigation process.

Above all, and most commonly, this is an issue about costs. We can all imagine what Tom Burgis, Catherine Belton and Charlotte Leslie felt when they received those letters. It is not just about the allegations or the possible reputational damage; it is about the real risk of bankruptcy, or at least having to pay out huge sums of money. It is just common sense that that is bound to suppress free expression and hobble investigative journalism. If the Bill goes some way towards preventing what is commonly described as the chilling effect of such litigation, it will be doing an extremely good job.

It is also true that the use of the justice system to pursue SLAPP claims undermines the rule of law and undermines confidence in the judiciary. There is a question as to whether courts have been manipulated. They have stuck to the rules and dealt with the law as it is, but have been unable to do much about claimants who bring cases for malicious and devious purposes. I often agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North; I do not agree as often with the Government or the Ministry of Justice, so that is a great pleasure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

If I may, I will address a few points raised by hon. Members and then make some final remarks.

On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about whether it is possible to strike out all or part of the claim or seek an appeal, he is absolutely correct.

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is not pressing his amendments. I reiterate that I am happy to discuss his remaining concerns about the Bill and how it needs to be tweaked before the remaining stages.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the Department has engaged extensively with the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. It is fair to say that we can never get all stakeholders entirely happy, but I am advised that the coalition is broadly supportive of the Bill. On the issue that she raised about behaviour, particularly with respect to domestic violence issues, of course it is not expected that the Bill seeks to facilitate behaviour, as she has outlined, in domestic violence issues. She has specific concerns as to how she believes domestic violence is being facilitated by elements of the Bill. I am more than happy to meet her to go through them in more detail, but we do not believe those concerns will be borne out by the Bill.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I confess that I am not exactly au fait with the Media Bill, but I will be more than happy to write to him about his specific points.

On the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill raised about clause 2(1)(c), of course all litigation causes alarm, but as paragraph 31 of the explanatory notes states, the

“behaviour must be intended to cause the defendant harassment, alarm, distress, expense, or any other harm or inconvenience, beyond that which would ordinarily be encountered in properly conducted litigation.”

That broadens it. Of course when someone gets litigation or letters from a lawyer, people are naturally alarmed or distressed, but what is the intent? To what extent does that behaviour meet the criteria and those descriptors in paragraph 31 of the explanatory notes, which clarify the behaviour we are seeking to curtail?

I reiterate that the Bill will protect the individuals and organisations that engage in important public debate. It will advance accountability for those who would obfuscate their dealings, and it will ensure that speaking out in the public interest is given the support that it deserves. The Bill will safeguard our courts, ensuring that our highly regarded legal system is protected from the insidious abuse of process that could undermine its reputation of achieving justice for all.

The amendments tabled to clause 2 by the hon. Member for Caerphilly will ensure that public interest is kept at the heart of the issues, as its suppression is a key hallmark of SLAPP cases. The introduction of the reasonableness component of the test will ensure that inappropriate behaviour and weaponised processes are identified and tackled at the earliest possible opportunity. The centring of the behaviour of the claimant will ensure that it is abundantly clear to those who would use SLAPPs that they cannot act poorly and remain unchecked and unchallenged, whether that behaviour happens in the courtroom, via privately funded surveillance or a social media campaign to undermine the credibility of an author, academic or whistleblower. The Government are content fully to support all 10 of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, which we believe will strengthen the Bill.

With respect to amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the Government laud his intention to ensure that the Bill is properly drafted so that it captures all SLAPPs. I hope I have reassured him that the matters he raises are in many respects already covered by the existing draft of the Bill for a number of reasons. I repeat my offer to meet him to reassure him further, if necessary.

[Sir David Davis]

To be clear, I do not think that the Bill, as drafted, meets the requirements. I will not press my amendments to a vote, because they are flawed, but I will table something on Report to deal with the issue. I hope that we can agree on what it should be.

[Mike Freer]

I thank my right hon. Friend and reiterate my offer to sit down with him and go through this in detail, whether for me to reassure him that the Bill meets his objectives or for him to convince me that we need to go further.

Clause 2(1)(c), to which amendment 12 would add, is broad: “any” behaviour can be considered by the court as evidence of misconduct. Subsections (4) and (5) give examples, but are certainly not intended to be exhaustive lists. Furthermore, many matters in the amendment are covered by clause 2(4). For example, the reference to

“disproportionate reaction to the matters complained of in the claim”

will cover excessive disclosure requests and dilatory strategies, as well as questions regarding the choice of jurisdiction.

The Government expressly support the amendments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to clause 2 and the reasonableness test. We will not support the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has tabled but not moved, as we believe that materially they cover the same ground. However, I repeat my offer to meet and see where we can agree.

I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Caerphilly for promoting this important Bill, and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. The Bill will ensure that all those who speak out against corruption, hold the powerful to account and guard our freedoms through raising their voice are protected.

British Justice System and International Corruption Cases

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

5.6 pm

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

This is the third debate on oligarchs and lawfare that I have led in the past two years. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to return once again to this matter, but it is just as crucial as ever.

In the last three decades, London has been swamped by a tidal wave of money that has poured in from Russia, other ex-Soviet states, China, and other corrupt regimes around the world. Cash-hungry charities, universities and political parties have gladly accepted that money, and have looked at those deep-pocketed oligarchs with green-eyed gullibility. All have shown an excessive willingness to overlook the misbehaviour of the people supplying the money.

My previous debate on this subject was in response to the bullying of a former Member of this place, Charlotte Leslie, by someone who has sought to take advantage of this cash-for-access attitude: Mohamed Amersi. Over the past decade, Amersi has set out to purchase a reputation in the British establishment, seeking to be known as an upright citizen and philanthropist. He even has a name for it: “access capitalism.” However, his fame has turned to notoriety, as more and more worrying information has come to light about his past. He trained his sights on Ms Leslie because of her proper exercise of due diligence in regard to him. That came after he attempted to take control of the Conservative Middle East Council, which Ms Leslie runs, and then in turn sought to set up his own rival organisation.

Amersi accused Ms Leslie of libel for what she had said about him, in an excessively long, drawn-out and expensive legal case that also encompassed a wrongful claim of a breach of data protection rules. But his campaign against her went far beyond the case itself; he set out to destroy her reputation. There were lies that she sexually blackmailed men; the collection of intimate details about her family; physical intimidation; threatening letters sent by notorious legal firm Carter-Ruck to journalists and MPs, including myself, claiming that Ms Leslie consorted with sanctioned individuals; and an obsessive, misogynistic and ultimately defamatory hate campaign conducted on social media by Amersi himself.

Ms Leslie has at last been vindicated in court, with Mr Justice Nicklin noting Amersi’s

“exorbitant approach to the litigation”,

and the fact that

“Subjecting a person to successive civil claims can be a hallmark of abusive conduct”.

Amersi clearly hoped that he could break Ms Leslie’s resolve and force her to concede through bullying, intimidation and the threat of financial ruin. He failed. He also sought to intimidate a current Member of this place, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had likewise tried to shed light on his dealings.

Thanks to those two people and the relentless work of journalists such as Tom Burgis, upon whose new book “Cuckooland” I will draw today, we know that Amersi is deeply immersed in a twilight world of backroom bribes, creative accountancy, and a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. That is why he was so desperate to suppress Ms Leslie’s claims: he did not want to be exposed and have his carefully crafted public image—that of a savvy entrepreneur and generous philanthropist—shredded. With that in mind, a closer look at his past is warranted.

The names of the regimes that Amersi has aided, abetted and enriched make for a shopping list of dictatorships and autocracies. First, let us look at Russia—as with so many tales of corruption and kleptocracy, the story starts in Russia. In 2005, Amersi was an adviser in a deal with the Danish lawyer and businessman Jeffrey Galmond. Galmond claimed to own a large swathe of the Russian telecoms market. In reality, though, he was said to be a frontman for the Russian telecoms Minister and Putin ally Leonid Reiman, who used Galmond to exercise his control over the sector. That was confirmed by a Swiss arbitration tribunal in 2006, which noted that Reiman arranged deals to “misappropriate” Russian state assets “for his personal enrichment”. It seems likely that Amersi’s payment for the deal—$4 million—came from the proceeds of crime against the Russian people, funnelled via Galmond.

In an affidavit issued by Galmond the year before the deal Amersi advised on, Galmond acknowledged the existence of allegations about his relationship with Reiman. We know that Amersi would have had a copy of that affidavit, which surely should have raised some questions in his mind, yet the deal went ahead and Amersi got his $4 million. It was a straightforward case of a fixer being rewarded for facilitating a deal. Of course, Amersi denies knowing the truth about Galmond, but we have to ask ourselves how ignorant someone working on such deals could really have been. It had been clear for years that the post-Soviet regime in Russia was a kleptocracy. Indeed, Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in 2006 because he had been investigating post-Soviet corruption.

However, Russia is not the only place of interest. I also want to focus on a few places where Amersi has been active: Uzbekistan, Nepal and Kazakhstan. In those places, Amersi worked as a representative of TeliaSonera, a large Swedish telecoms firm. His pay was an astonishing £19,000 a day. That gives us an idea of what TeliaSonera thought he brought to the company, but the question has to be asked: what on earth could Amersi possibly bring to the table to justify a salary of nearly £7 million a year?

In Uzbekistan, the deal Amersi was involved in led to a finding of criminal activity. In essence, TeliaSonera—the company Amersi worked for—agreed to buy a company controlled by the President of Uzbekistan’s daughter for a hugely inflated price in order to gain access to the Uzbek market. That company and its Uzbek subsidiary later admitted that it had paid

“more than $331 million in bribes to an Uzbek official”.

That is corruption 101: paying a bribe by vastly overpaying in a business deal that ultimately profits members of a corrupt regime. The American Department of Justice confirmed that TeliaSonera

“corruptly built a lucrative telecommunications business in Uzbekistan, using bribe payments wired around the world through accounts here in New York City.”

As a result of all this, various judicial authorities ended up imposing fines of nearly $1 billion on TeliaSonera in 2017. Amersi pleads ignorance—if we believe his version of events, he had no idea that TeliaSonera was crafting a massive bung for a corrupt post-Soviet regime. However, Amersi knew that the Uzbek businessman with whom TeliaSonera was dealing ran a telecoms company that, according to a memo that Amersi had seen, was controlled by affiliates of the Uzbek President’s daughter. That will be something of a theme in these cases: Amersi saying that he could not possibly have known, but then being exposed by the documentary evidence. The pattern is that of a specialist in shady dealing, and it was for that specialism that TeliaSonera was paying him nearly £7 million a year.

Amersi’s work for TeliaSonera extended to Nepal, where he helped that company gain access to the telecoms market. At the time, Nepal was controlled by a corrupt Maoist regime. In this sphere, Amersi facilitated a deal with Nepalese business tycoon Ajeya Raj Sumargi, which involved many millions of dollars finding its way to Sumargi. However, it was not really Sumargi whose friendship TeliaSonera sought; it was that of the corrupt Maoist Government. That much is clear from a 2013 report commissioned by TeliaSonera and carried out by private intelligence specialists Control Risks, which notes that its sources believed Sumargi

“handles and invests unaccounted money for various Maoist leaders.”

Control Risks further reported that Sumargi’s relationship with leading Nepalese politician, and now Prime Minister, Prachanda

“extends beyond the realms of business”.

It appears Sumargi even bought Prachanda a house in his sister-in-law’s name. The report also noted existing allegations of bribery and corruption against Sumargi, and claims of

“unethical or illegal business practices”.

Even after this report, Amersi urged TeliaSonera to maintain its relationship with Sumargi, which it did to the tune of millions of dollars.

Yet another example of this pattern is found in Kazakhstan, where Amersi facilitated a large questionable business deal to the benefit of a banker accused of being a front for the corrupt Kazakh regime. Both TeliaSonera and Amersi were handsomely rewarded for this. Once again, Amersi will claim he could not possibly have known of this corruption, but this is a clear pattern of behaviour. This is a man who knew exactly what he was doing.

As I have said, in all these cases Amersi maintains his innocence. In fact, he told Mr Burgis that he would only deem a potential business partner to be corrupt if there was 100% proof—a higher bar, of course, than that of a criminal court, and a bar rarely reached, but never reached if you always look the other way.

A report by the highly respected legal firm Norton Rose Fulbright, commissioned by TeliaSonera in the wake of its corruption scandal, noted that the

“nature of the services and the relationships provided”

by Amersi were

“not transparent, it appears often deliberately so.”

It stated that, in his dealings with TeliaSonera, Amersi

“was taking no obvious risk”,

and did not have the kind of overheads associated with an investment bank, yet was being paid like one. Throughout the report, Amersi was referred to as Mr “XY”, if Members care to read it. The report noted that in some cases he was apparently paid twice for providing the same service, at one point receiving a fee of $30 million. It also highlighted back-to-back payment arrangements—a classic laundering exercise—whereby TeliaSonera would pay his company, and his company would then pay the third party in question the same amount.

I would like to turn to Amersi’s relationship with the British legal system, which is the core of this. Much has been said about this in the past, and I do not want to repeat what I and others have said in this House, but there is one aspect we must focus on, and it relates to Amersi’s legal case against Charlotte Leslie. That was one of the key strategic lawsuits against public participation that we talked about when we raised the SLAPPs campaign back in January 2022.

In a hearing in this case in June last year, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, asked both sides to state what costs they had incurred in fighting the case to that point. Ms Leslie’s team provided the information, but Mr Amersi’s lawyers failed or refused to do so. This was rather odd: as Justice Nicklin pointed out, Amersi’s lawyers were declining to provide information that was already in the public domain. As he put it:

“Would you help me with how you can maintain a claim of confidentiality when you have given an interview to a newspaper in which you have told the newspaper how much your costs are?”

That interview from June 2021 was with Tom Burgis and published in the Financial Times.

The lawyers’ response in court was to say that Burgis’s reporting was inaccurate and misrepresented the truth: the figure quoted by Burgis—£300,000—was wrong, and Amersi had never said it. In fact, however, the transcript of the interview shows exactly what he said:

“£260,000 worth of costs, right? Nearly £300,000 now, after the DPA”—

Data Protection Act—

“filings’ against Ms Leslie.”

Amersi went on to confirm the £300,000 figure in an email to the Private Eye journalist Richard Brooks in 2021, and his lawyers—from the notorious firm Carter-Ruck—did the same in a threatening letter they sent to the Financial Times in 2022. Yet in court, Amersi’s lawyers told Mr Justice Nicklin that the costs had

“not been revealed to Mr Burgis”,

which is a lie. Amersi claimed in a sworn witness statement that he

“did not say that my legal costs were approaching £300,000”,

which is also a lie. In short, Burgis’s reporting was correct, and Amersi and his lawyers knew that when they told the court it was not. I am not a lawyer, but that would appear to me to be perjury.

A picture emerges of an attempt to avoid justice by obscuring the truth. Indeed, it is not only the court system that Mr Amersi has sought to bend his will; he has attempted to buy his way into the British establishment and, worryingly, he has had some success. Amersi has managed to recast himself as a philanthropist and a benefactor, rather than the shady political fixer for corrupt politicians that he really is. He has donated to charities, academic institutions and the Conservative party, and apparently he now intends to donate to Labour. Clearly, he will do whatever he can to get influence.

The British establishment is clearly vulnerable. There is a green-eyed gullibility at the top of our society, with institutions happy to hoover up cash without asking questions. I am afraid that the origin of that vulnerability dates back to the Blair years, when a tendency to overlook inconvenient truths about wealthy donors became embedded, but it has to be said that it did not improve with subsequent Governments either. Indeed, the sad truth is that Amersi is just one of many people who take advantage of our freedoms to enrich themselves and to dodge accountability.

I welcome that the action the Government have taken to make it harder for oligarchs and their enablers to bend our justice system to their will, but there is much more work to be done to ensure that British justice is the enemy of these corrupt individuals, and not a tool for achieving their wicked ends. The Government are properly starting to change the law on SLAPPs, but to deal with current misbehaviour, we need to enforce the laws that already exist to protect ordinary British citizens. There must also be more scrutiny of such people’s attempts to buy their way to a good reputation.

Although I have set out to detail an accurate account of Amersi’s behaviour based on extensive documentation, it is for the appropriate legal bodies to come to a decision on his innocence or guilt. However, we know that Amersi facilitated corrupt deals. The repeat nature of the murky practices involved is striking, and he put Charlotte Leslie through years of persecution and torture for her due diligence, in what may have amounted—in my view, it did—to criminal harassment.

The Bribery Act 2010 is clear that it is an offence for a British citizen to bribe a foreign public official, no matter where in the world that action takes place. Mr Amersi is a British citizen, and he must obey British law. His dealings in the former Soviet Union and Nepal are therefore surely a matter for the National Crime Agency to consider. Furthermore, the Metropolitan police must now consider whether the actions against Charlotte Leslie constitute criminal harassment, and the judiciary should consider the question of perjury that I outlined a moment or two ago. I will send copies of the Hansard for today’s debate to all those agencies. I know that the Solicitors Regulation Authority is already reviewing a complaint about the conduct of Carter-Ruck in these matters.

The very due diligence that Ms Leslie has been attacked for is exactly what we need when it comes to people like Amersi. We must ensure that it happens, and that it is not prevented by the kind of bullying deployed by Mr Amersi. All this is a test case for how we handle corruption and cronyism in our country. It is imperative we meet that test if London is not to become a global capital for sleaze.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

It is important to establish what is already available to the police: section 39 on common assault, section 47 on assault occasioning actual bodily harm and—heaven forbid—sections 20 and 18, which relate to more serious cases of grievous bodily harm. Plus, if an individual is convicted on any of those grounds, the courts can—indeed, ought to—consider assault on a retail worker as an aggravating factor. As I have indicated, that can mean the difference between a non-custodial and a custodial penalty.

We will keep these matters under review, but the central point is that before someone can go before the court, they have to be arrested. That is why I am delighted that we have more police officers than at any time in our history, ready to take the fight to those who assault shop workers.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend has a terrific record on dealing with SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—so he will understand how greedy lawyers encourage their billionaire clients to crush their opponents by extending court cases, dragging them out and multiplying them. What has not been taken on board is that that also costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. I think those lawyers should have to meet those costs. With that in mind, will he publish the costs incurred by SLAPPs cases?

[Alex Chalk]

No one in this House has done more than my right hon. Friend to clamp down on this iniquitous behaviour, and I am pleased that we have been able to make some progress. He makes a really important point: every day that is spent in court pursuing ill-founded and abusive litigation is time that could be spent on other matters in the public interest. I will certainly look into the interesting suggestion he makes about publishing the cost of that behaviour.

Lawfare

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On 20 January last year, I opened a Backbench Business debate on the use of lawfare and strategic litigation against public participation by those seeking to suppress public debate, bully people into submission and conceal vital information that is in the public interest. Free speech matters—that is a truism of our age—but why does it matter? There are many reasons, but the important one is that free speech helps keep our society clean; free of corruption, criminality and the abuse of power.

Typically, such corruption is curbed when whistleblowers expose it; when journalists and a free press report it; and when politicians or judicial authorities act on it. As such, over-mighty men and organisations that have acquired their power and money through corrupt means hate free speech, and use their wealth to suppress it. To do that, they use SLAPPs—strategic litigation against public participation.

SLAPPs are a suite of litigious techniques, used by corrupt plutocrats, that are designed to intimidate, suppress and destroy the same whistleblowers, journalists and politicians who are trying to expose malpractice. They are designed to do this even when the plutocrat has no substantive case at all. They are designed to grind down decent, honest, public-spirited people and ruin them.

Earlier this week in the House of Lords, the Government introduced the first legislative changes designed to tackle this issue of lawfare—SLAPPs. In the intervening period, the problem has been exemplified by the actions of the businessman Mohamed Amersi. I have already named this gentleman several times in the House in connection with our colleague Charlotte Leslie, who had to face two and a half years of fighting Amersi’s spurious legal claims against her. That court case was concluded in Charlotte Leslie’s favour a few weeks ago.

The judge found that Amersi’s case failed on the facts, but, importantly, he added that “several aspects” of Amersi’s conduct gave “real cause for concern” about the intent behind his legal case. Amersi delayed the start of defamation proceedings, took an

“exorbitant approach to the litigation”

and pursued an unnecessarily complex case. He also pursued a data protection claim and a defamation claim in succession rather than properly in one action, thereby spinning out the case and maximising the stress and cost on Charlotte Leslie. This was clearly an attempt to bully, intimidate and financially ruin Ms Leslie in order to suppress the truth. These are the classic characteristics of a SLAPP case, being designed to destroy free speech, not to deliver justice. The judge also noted that Amersi offered to drop his claim against Charlotte Leslie if he got his way and was given the green light to launch a rival group to Ms Leslie’s Conservative Middle East Council. This was a clear attempt to blackmail the Conservative party via a sort of judicial hostage taking.

These are all standard SLAPP tactics, which is unsurprising given that Mr Amersi was represented by Carter-Ruck, the go-to law firm for every bad actor seeking to undermine or misuse British justice. However, Carter-Ruck is not the only law firm willing to aid legal intimidation by dishonest and dishonourable means, if paid the right price. Others include CMS, Mishcon de Reya, Skadden, Taylor Wessing, Schillings and Harbottle & Lewis.

Charlotte Leslie is not alone in facing lawfare at the hands of Mr Amersi. He is also suing the BBC’s “Panorama” programme, and he has threatened The Guardian, Chatham House and Private Eye. He has also used legal threats to bully King’s College London into withdrawing a report on tax avoidance, tax evasion, economic crime and the way this has impacted on our public space and politics. The report was written in 2021 by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who was a visiting professor at King’s College and is a long-standing campaigner against international corruption. The report was published in May 2022, but due to Amersi’s threats it was removed a few weeks later. This report was in the public interest, and highly relevant to our debates on the role and influence of Russian oligarchs and on the economic crime Bill, but access to it by the public, and indeed by Members, was prevented.

Why did Amersi do this? Because he did not like what was being written about him, and because our laws allow those with deep pockets to bully people, suppress negative commentary in the media and stop us holding their actions to public account—and because he is rich enough to do it. But what was it that Mr Amersi wanted to conceal with his SLAPPS? In a word, the truth—a long history of involvement in corruption, in bribery and in buying access to politicians.

Amersi is a wealthy businessman who made large sums of money in Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Nepal, which are all countries where corruption is rife. In 2005, Amersi made $4 million arranging the acquisition of a Russian telecoms company on behalf of a company he knew was secretly owned by a powerful Putin ally, the then Russian telecoms Minister, Leonid Reiman. He made another $1.5 million by buying and selling on a Russian telecoms venture, Komet, which was backed by a Russian general. In the UK, Amersi used his fortune to gain access to powerful people. He coined the term “access capitalism”, describing his own attempts to gain access to the royal household and Ministers, with payments to Prince Charles’s charities and the Conservative party. He and his partner gave £750,000 to the Conservative party, and he makes no bones about what he thought he was buying.

When the Pandora papers were leaked in 2021, they exposed some of the most egregious instances of corruption, economic crime and money laundering. Amersi was in the thick of it. Following the leak, a joint investigation by the BBC and The Guardian revealed that he profited from a corrupt deal involving the Swedish energy company Telia, and a high-profile kleptocrat in Uzbekistan. Most of the investigation relied on court documents, and a settlement reached between the Telia and the US Department of Justice, following a four-year investigation into that company’s activities. A leaked internal company report described the activities of a consultant called “Mr XY”, who it transpires is Mohamed Amersi. It said that some of the payments to Amersi

“may have been utilised to improperly acquire regulatory benefits and/or secure the go-ahead of the transaction.”

The report recommended that Telia sack him. That is not surprising, given that Telia’s former chief compliance officer said that he had been

“involved in one of the biggest corruption scandals that we have seen in Sweden.”

Amersi helped to facilitate a $220 million purchase of shares from a shell company owned by the daughter of the Uzbek President at the time. That share purchase was in fact a concealed bribe—that was the clear view of the US Department of Justice. Mr Amersi pocketed a $500,000 million “success fee” following the deal. He claims he was employed by Telia, at a rate of $10 million a year, for his advanced skills and aptitude for negotiating. Despite those apparent skills, he claims not to have realised that a financial arrangement he helped design facilitated a multimillion dollar bribe. Either he knew it was a bribe, or he was extremely naive and therefore grossly overpaid. I know my view, but I will leave the public to decide theirs.

This is precisely why the right hon. Member for Barking wrote about Mr Amersi in her report last year. This story had already been reported in The Guardian and the BBC, and this is the first paragraph that he wanted removed from the right hon. Lady’s paper— I will quote exactly:

“The figures behind the [Pandora] leak are mind-boggling, and the documents contain many scandalous stories which really confirm how utterly awful the abuse of offshore has become. The papers bring to light how Conservative Party donor, Mohamed Amersi, allegedly used BVI-based companies to profit from apparently corrupt deals between a Swedish telecoms giant and a key power broker in the kleptocratic regime in Uzbekistan. They reveal the offshore structures deployed by Putin’s inner circle of oligarchs and allies to buy million-dollar properties along the Monaco seafront. They demonstrate that money flows into onshore tax havens, such as US states like South Dakota, where there is around $360 billion hidden in secret trusts, including money that could have been derived from corrupt regimes or criminal activities.”

This is the second paragraph that he wanted removed:

“Comments from Mohamed Amersi, a Kenyan-born telecoms millionaire who, as previously discussed, was named in the Pandora Papers, seems to confirm that political donations can have a sinister purpose, after he described his frustrations at what he called ‘access capitalism’. Amersi previously admitted to buying access to Prince Charles and he has also donated £750,000 to the Conservative Party since 2017. He claims to have paid £250,000 to become a member of the party’s ‘Advisory Board’ which has regular meetings with Boris Johnson and leading Cabinet members, and claims that he was promised the chairmanship of a new body, the Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa, a promise that has yet to materialise. The role would have given him significant power and influence as he would have acted as a link between Governments in the region and British Ministers. Amersi is now mired in an international corruption scandal.”

The report of the right hon. Member for Barking, “Losing our moral compass” was about illicit finance and its corrosive impact. It summarised and analysed the features of many corruption cases in the public domain. It was a well-researched and argued paper, designed to inform public debate and written to show how dirty money threatens the integrity of our economy and our political institutions. Ironically, what followed illustrates how right she was.

Within days of the report being published, King’s College and the right hon. Member received legal threats. Through his lawyers at Carter-Ruck, Amersi branded the report highly defamatory. He demanded an apology and that the passages referring to him be either changed or entirely removed. Amersi bullied King’s College into removing the paper. As notional defenders of academic freedom, it should have stood up to him, but it capitulated in the face of his threats. His threat effectively silenced the right hon. Member and suppressed her vital work exposing economic crime and dirty money.

We know that Amersi is no stranger to using his financial might to get what he wants. He has previously paid to meet senior members of the royal family, but organisations such as the Conservative party and Buckingham Palace take serious reputational risks in associating with people like Amersi. His attempts to remove important information from public view are a textbook example of strategic litigation against public participation. They are clearly an exercise in lawfare.

We have an individual with deep pockets who can use British lawyers and courts to suppress the publication of information that is clearly in the public interest. It is done in the knowledge that lengthy legal battles will likely bankrupt politicians, journalists, academic institutions, whistleblowers and others who are brave enough to tell the truth about public corruption. Amersi, like many oligarchs with huge wealth of doubtful origin, is in the business of silencing people. His actions are an example of how the rich and powerful can silence anyone who criticises them. The kleptocrats, oligarchs and bad actors do not care if that means stifling free speech or public debate. Now they are even prepared to try to silence elected Members of Parliament and to block the publication of information that is plainly in the public interest.

We find ourselves in a dangerous situation, where the abuse of the legal system is now damaging the very core of our democracy. The cases faced by the right hon. Member for Barking and Charlotte Leslie serve as a glaring example of that. It is to the disadvantage of the whole country when public interest investigations by Tom Burgis, HarperCollins, Catherine Belton, Eliot Higgins, openDemocracy, Oliver Bullough and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism are shut down. Fortunately, the Government responded quickly to our debates on this issue last January. They almost immediately held a major consultation, which resulted in proposals for reform. On Tuesday this week, they introduced the first anti-SLAPP measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.

The measures will empower the courts to strike out SLAPPs before trial. They will also prevent courts from ordering defendants to pay claimants’ costs in relation to a SLAPP claim, unless misconduct by the defendants justifies that. Once a claim is deemed to be a SLAPP, the burden will be on the claimant to prove that their claim is more likely than not to succeed. If not, the claim can be struck out. This is a welcome reversal of the burden of proof. Taken together, these measures are a great win for those looking to shine a spotlight on economic crime and speak truth to power, but we must go further.

As things stand, the measures only apply to economic crimes. Approximately 70% of the crimes listed in April 2022 in the Foreign Policy Centre report were connected to financial crime and corruption, but SLAPPs have also been used to silence reporting on human rights abuses, labour practices, regulatory non-compliance and an array of other abuses that do not relate to economic crime. To be truly effective, we must broaden anti-SLAPP provisions so that they apply to all defamation lawsuits, because ultimately we want to ensure that people such as Wagner’s chief, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who has been in the news this week, are not able to silence and intimidate journalists, as he did to a Bellingcat reporter earlier this year. I welcome the commitment from Lord Bellamy on Tuesday that the Government will complete

“the jigsaw as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle appears.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2023; Vol. 831, c. 629.]

The issue will not end with reforms to defamation law. Data protection law and subject access requests are becoming yet another weapon for bullying people into silence. We also need proper regulation of private investigators, who in many instances have enabled SLAPPs through intrusive and often illegal surveillance or hacking. Justice Nicklin said that the tactic that Amersi’s lawyers used against Charlotte Leslie—that of bringing separate claims in succession—

“can be a hallmark of abusive conduct”.

I think he was being delicate in that reference to SLAPPs.

We could improve the Government’s proposals by allowing the courts to make the law firms and solicitors involved in SLAPPs pay the cost to the public purse, and so take the fight directly to those who enable SLAPPs. The London lawyers I listed earlier—Carter-Ruck and the rest—have designed a litany of tactics not to promote justice, but to suppress truth; not to protect reputations, but to silence legitimate criticism; not to ensure accountability, but to cover up corruption. That behaviour should not go unpunished. They should be made to meet the costs of wasting the courts’ time.

Our legal system is a source of pride. Britain is home to some of the fairest and best courts in the world. We cannot allow individuals with deep pockets and questionable motives to exploit our justice system and destroy our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction. Expanding anti-SLAPP measures will put an end to this perversion of our legal system that seeks to intimidate, threaten, and suppress British journalists, academics, civil society, and sitting Members of Parliament. We have made good progress, but if we fail to understand the magnitude of this issue and to fully address this problem, then, as the right hon. Member for Barking stated in her report, we are truly at risk of losing our moral compass.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Absolutely. The position is that we will do so at the earliest opportunity. As I said before, we are even considering this in legislation before the House at the moment, so I hope that that gives the hon. Member an indication of the urgency. However, the point to note is that it is very easy to say “anti-SLAPPs legislation”, but if we look at other jurisdictions, we see that that can be in the form of costs orders that can have unintended consequences in respect of the law of defamation. I am not suggesting that is any reason not to move quickly—we are going to move quickly—but we have to move quickly and with care. If we do not, we risk undermining the very policy objective we want to deliver.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will remind the Lord Chancellor that we have debated this matter a number of times in this House over more than the last year, so I do encourage haste. On scope, SLAPPs encourage a lot of other bad practices. For example, we are now the global centre of illegal hacking in this country. We have a very bad record for poorly regulated private investigation, so can he make sure his review covers that as well?

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my right hon. Friend absolutely has his finger on the pulse of this important issue. He makes a powerful point, and I can assure him that it is being borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I am afraid that I do not, but I respect the Committee. There has been pretty rampant abuse of the Human Rights Act 1998 when it comes to deporting foreign national offenders. That is what our Bill of Rights will cure.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The recent investigation into lawfare by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Sunday Times revealed how witnesses can be paid vast sums of money—up to £1 million—to appear in British courts. That is illegal in America. Does the Government agree that the payment of such a huge amount of money has the potential to sway witnesses and should be outlawed?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bring that to my attention. It sounds very serious and capable of having a negative and pejorative influence on proceedings. If he writes to me or—even better—comes to see me, I will be happy to look into it further.

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I thank him for informing the Table Office in advance of the case he intends to raise in his debate, which, I understand, is not sub judice. However, I remind all Members to be mindful of the sub judice resolution and to be careful to avoid raising any issues that could prejudice any future legal proceedings or those currently before the courts.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On 20 January, a number of us MPs initiated a debate on the use of lawfare by oligarchs and undemocratic states that seek to suppress free speech and scrutiny of their activity. The Ministry of Justice took up the question and has promised new legislation, and I am glad to see the new Minister about to lose his departmental virginity in this debate—it will not hurt; I will be gentle.

Today, I will speak about another outrageous case of lawfare that centres around the former Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. He was the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan for three decades. His time in office was characterised by repression, torture and other human rights abuses. He was ousted from power in 2019, but remains a significant influence in the country. He was more or less able to anoint his successor as president, and met Vladimir Putin even after leaving office.

During his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev won elections with claimed results of more than 90% of votes cast, and the capital city was even renamed after him in 2019. The term “rigged dictatorship” comes to mind. As long ago as 1999, the western press aired concerns about assets held by Nazarbayev and his associates. In that year, The New Yorker reported that Swiss officials had found a bank account worth $85 million that was intended for the Kazakh Treasury, but was in fact held by Nazarbayev—$85 million, which turns out to be small change. Three years later, Nazarbayev’s critics in Kazakhstan accused him of hiding $1 billion in oil revenue in offshore accounts.

Now, the Nazarbayev Fund Private Fund, an ostensibly charitable organisation, and a related firm, Jusan Technologies Ltd, have between them started a lawfare campaign against four news bodies, including three based in Britain, which are the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The Daily Telegraph and openDemocracy. The supposed provocation for that action was the news bodies’ reports on Nazarbayev and his associates, which revealed several ambiguities and a lack of transparency around his charitable foundations.

First, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a non-profit investigative news platform, published an investigation into charitable foundations set up during Nazarbayev’s rule. It revealed that companies connected to those charitable foundations and to his relatives had received bail-out and loan funding from his Government.

One such case involves the St Regis Astana, which is a hotel in the Kazakh capital that opened in 2017. The company that owns the hotel, the Turion Investment Group, has included among its shareholders Nazarbayev’s daughter and son in law. The hotel project was built with the help of a loan of $85 million from a state-owned development bank, which even the current President Tokayev conceded has become

“the personal bank of a select group of people representing financial, industrial, and construction groups.”

Let us remember that that is supposed to be a state bank.

In the early 2000s, Nazarbayev’s Presidential Affairs Department joined two Kazakh firms in developing a resort on the Turkish coast where Nazarbayev reportedly spends his own holidays. One of the private firms involved was owned by three businessmen who had previously handed cash to Nazarbayev’s university fund. In another instance, two of Nazarbayev’s foundations owned a landscaping business that received $6.5 million in Government contracts between 2012 and 2018.

After those revelations, openDemocracy covered the story and asked the simple question of whether an autocrat’s riches were being allowed into this country without due scrutiny. It was talking about Jusan Technologies, a firm that is incorporated in the United Kingdom and has nearly $8 billion in gross assets, yet had only one member of staff in the UK in 2020.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph then collaborated to investigate Jusan Technologies. It appears that its registered office at the time was a brass-plate address shared with hundreds of other firms. Its assets have been held in several sectors, including banking, telecoms and retail, and in several countries, from Luxembourg and the UK to Kazakhstan itself. Until recently, it was controlled by three organisations, including the Nazarbayev fund via an intermediary organisation.

The Nazarbayev fund is allegedly run for the benefit of educational institutions in Kazakhstan and stipulates in its charter that Nazarbayev cannot benefit personally from the fund. Yet he remains the chairman of its executive body and has the power to change its rules. It is not clear why a fund ostensibly for education and the benefit of the Kazakh population needs assets in banking or retail.

The fund is also connected to senior Kazakh politicians. Nazarbayev’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Yerbol Orynbayev, was a director of Jusan Tech and owned 4.6% of the company. Moreover, the investigation shows that the First Heartland Jusan Bank, the largest asset owned by Jusan Technologies, has received more than $2 billion in bail-outs from the Kazakh Government. This is a company that has paid out $430 million in shareholder dividends in recent years. An oligarch married to one of Nazarbayev’s relatives owns 20% of the bank. It appears to be steeped in Nazarbayev’s influence.

While Jusan Technologies itself has now changed its ownership structure—it did so shortly before the reports were first published—the new structure is, if anything, even more opaque. The new owner is a non-profit organisation based in Nevada, a jurisdiction the secrecy laws of which have been criticised in the past, including in respect of the Pandora papers. That non-profit is owned by another non-profit, whose president is the chief executive of the Nazarbayev fund as well as Nazarbayev’s former Education Minister.

Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are confused by this extraordinary cat’s cradle of different and interlocking organisations, you would not be alone. It is designed to be confusing and designed to be difficult to understand and opaque. Creating organisations of this level of opacity and complexity is not easy, but it is always done for a reason. In this case, the most likely reason is to conceal the extent of Nazarbayev’s control of this web of assets and wealth.

To come back to the point about lawfare, all the news outlets did was ask legitimate questions and try to shine a light on some apparent irregularities and the opaque nature of Nazarbayev’s foundations. They did not even make any allegations of impropriety or money laundering in the articles for which they are being attacked, yet they are now facing potential legal censure. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph alone have received three threatening legal letters in four months telling them to retract their claims and apologise, and a case has now been filed in the High Court.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I noticed that these cases had been filed, though not yet served, and I tabled a written question in this place about their effects on media freedom. I have to tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that I was then contacted by lawyers for the company asking me to withdraw that question. What is his response to their asking me to withdraw a perfectly innocent parliamentary question?

[Mr Davis]

First, the lawyers clearly do not understand parliamentary privilege. Secondly, what they are doing—I will come back to this in a second—is trying to repress free speech and transparency in this country. This is a clear case of an ultra-wealthy individual using the British legal system to try to scare his critics into silence, and what the hon. Gentleman refers to is their trying to extend that to his actions—proper actions—in this House. The work of those who have been targeted is all the more important considering that Nazarbayev has himself had a law passed in Kazakhstan preventing him from being prosecuted there. What he is doing with this lawfare is trying to extend that protection to this country, which, frankly, is an outrage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. Does he not agree that we can never be in a position where the fear of the personal costs of litigation prevents truth from being revealed by journalists, who are putting their homes and their livelihoods on the line to highlight individuals who will in retaliation sue them until they have not a penny to spare, and that rather than simply saying that this is awful, as we all are, what we really need is the Government to present and bring to this House legislation to prevent it?

[Mr Davis]

I will come back to that very point in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman implies, defending oneself against a libel claim, especially by an oligarch or other wealthy person, is often cripplingly expensive. In fact, it is typically cripplingly expensive. The risk is not losing the case, which is improbable in most of these cases. The penalty for exponents of free speech is the sheer cost of a vexatious process, which is what Nazarbayev wants.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate and on making a fantastic speech. He has been a passionate and effective campaigner on the growing problem of egregious strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—and has argued, along with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for urgent action to stop these abuses.

I want to raise the case of Dmitry Leus, a UK resident of Russian-Turkmen origin, who is threatening libel action against Chatham House because of his inclusion in its excellent report, “The UK’s Kleptocracy Problem.” Leus was a Russian banker, convicted of money laundering in Russia in 2004, who arrived in the UK on a Cypriot passport. He has donated to the Conservative party and chaired his local Conservative association. He tried to donate £500,000 to the foundation of the then Prince Charles, but the donation was spurned when the charity learnt of his conviction. In July my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said in this House that Leus is “absolutely dependent” on the Russian security services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I was extraordinarily generous.

[Mr Davis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for drawing the attention of the House to that case. I do not know the substance of it, but the fact is that these cases are best resolved transparently and in public, with fearless reporting, not with repression of free speech. Oligarchs will often bring these claims as they know their opponents will, as in this case, have to back down either through the threat of bankruptcy or because they become bankrupt as a result of the operation, and it is a good example of this problem.

That is why the Government earlier this year found that some journalists

“no longer publish information on certain individuals or topics—such as exposing serious wrong-doing or corruption—because of potential legal costs.”

That also applies to some newspapers and some organisations whose job it is to expose this sort of information.

With every letter and every stage of legal action, organisations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism must divert resources and attention away from public interest reporting and towards defending themselves against bogus or trivial claims. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has a small team, with just a few dozen staff. To defend itself, it has been forced to divert much of its reporting team and senior management, as well as significant financial resources, to dealing with these legal threats.

This kind of lawfare is a potentially existential threat to investigative journalism, and that is precisely what the claimants in these cases intend. These proceedings are not initiated to prove the organisations wrong—the oligarchs know that the organisations are right—but rather to financially and psychologically exhaust them into retraction. What Nazarbayev wants is to import into the UK the contempt for free speech shown in Kazakhstan during his three-decade rule. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out in his intervention, Nazarbayev is bringing to Britain what he imposed on Kazakhstan and we cannot allow that. This should offend the sensibilities of anyone who values a fair and equal justice system, as well as those who rightly appreciate the value of public interest reporting.

It is of some reassurance that the Government intend to reform the law around SLAPPs, but we must move more quickly. I say that directly to the Minister, who is an old friend of mine over the years; I am very pleased he is in his place and in the Department as he will do a fantastic job, but I say to him that we must move more quickly. There is no time to waste when even now we have oligarchs using SLAPPs to curb free speech and evade justice in our country. One of our ex-colleagues, Charlotte Leslie, is facing such a case at the moment. We as Members of Parliament have parliamentary privilege and so can speak without the threat of libel action, but that privilege brings with it a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak for fear of punishment by the likes of Nazarbayev.

In the wake of the war in Ukraine, the Government swiftly introduced sanctions on those with links to the Russian regime, making it harder for them to use our country as a money-laundering venue. It is high time that we applied that same urgency and purpose to addressing the damage that oligarchs are doing to our justice system and our free-speech values. For too long, we have facilitated oligarchs’ dirty money and corruption in the UK.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a great speech and incredibly good points about lawfare. We have the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill before the House, and it would be wonderful if the Minister, when he is on his feet in a few minutes, confirmed that lawfare will be part of that. We have a lawfare Bill written and ready to go, and the Government could adopt it. There are three elements to it: the abuse of privacy laws; various other factors; and the aggressive abuse of libel law. The problem is, whether we like it or not, we may make grandiose speeches about how free speech must be defended, but it is being attacked all the time. In the last few years, it has been relentlessly attacked by criminals, by oligarchs and by Russian proxies and other corrupt proxies in this country. We need laws brought in now, not at some time in the future.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our friends and neighbours in the US and Europe are taking action, and we must not be left behind. If we do not act, we will let dangerous people off the hook while allowing journalists and researchers to be punished for doing their jobs. What we need now is a commitment from Ministers to bring forward either a free-standing SLAPPs Bill or measures that form a component of another Bill. I do not care which it is, but it must happen soon.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Davis]

Briefly, because I have only seconds left.

[Andy Slaughter]

The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech and an excellent case for having anti-SLAPP legislation either as part of the economic crime Bill or as a stand-alone Bill. That needs to happen. There seems to be a general issue with costs, which are being used as a weapon in economic crime, in SLAPPs and in many other areas of law. It was an issue in Leveson as well. Do we not need to look at that and ensure that the courts can do their job unfettered by those outside influences that are causing the best legal system in the world to come into disrepute?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Member is exactly right. There are a variety of other mechanisms that we could use. We could give judges the right to strike down egregious cases early. We could even look at the prospect of providing legal aid for journalists pursuing bona fide public interest issues. There are a variety of issues, and we should address all of them. This country is the global home of justice. Our justice system is admired around the world, but, if we are not careful, it will be corrupted, undermined, manipulated and abused by SLAPPS and people using SLAPPs.

I ask the Department and the Minister to take action, or to tell us that they will take action. Brits are rightly proud of how our legal system is a model for the world. If we are to ensure that that remains the case, we must act, and act soon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the Minister to his new position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying. I cannot give her the commitment that we will place that within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. There are two schools of thought on whether it can be placed in another piece of legislation, and thereby limited by the long title of that Bill, or whether it is better off dealt with in isolation, so it has more of a free rein. I can inform her and the House that the legislation is still, at this stage, being drafted. As a consequence, it is not oven-ready to go straight into another piece of legislation that is before the House now.

[Mr Davis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Bob Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

I hope, and I hope it is not a naïve hope, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will work with the Ministry of Justice on this, because we do intend to legislate on the issue.

[Mr David Davis]

Of course we do not want to get in the way of the Ministry of Justice, but the key issue is speed. If the Minister can, not necessarily today—I know Cabinet committees need to deal with this; we are all familiar with that—but at some point in the near future, say to us, “Yes, we are going to do it in this Session. Yes, we are going to do it soon,” he will find that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill makes much easier progress than otherwise.

[Gareth Johnson]

I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance that we will do this as soon as the legislation is ready and as soon as parliamentary time allows it to happen.