Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to some of those points later in my speech. Let us be very clear: the title of the Bill refers to terminally ill adults, not disabled people or elderly people, as another hon. Member referred to. The criteria are very clear.

I come back to the status quo, which is the problem we are trying to address. If people want to avoid the trauma of some of the harrowing circumstances I have described, they can have an assisted death—just not in this country. If they have £10,000 or £15,000, they can make the trip to Switzerland or elsewhere but, because of the current legal position, it is often a deeply distressing and very lonely experience, shrouded in secrecy, with people feeling like criminals as the fear of prosecution hangs over them.

Ilana’s husband Crispin had late-stage motor neurone disease. He was paralysed, and Ilana is a wheelchair user, but at his request she took him on a traumatic and difficult journey to Switzerland. She describes the intense stress and anxiety she felt due to the total secrecy of their plan—and we can only imagine what the journey home was like, on her own, with an empty seat beside her.

There are also those terminally ill people who take matters into their own hands. Gareth’s father Norman served in the Welsh Guards. He was a strong man, but his final five years were full of pain and discomfort. He had prostate cancer, which he lived with for 15 years. He was given good initial hormone therapy and chemo, but the cancer spread everywhere and the pain could not be eased. One day, when it all became too much, he went into his garden with the gun he owned and shot himself. Gareth’s sister rushed to his house and found him. Gareth said his father just wanted the pain to stop.

Then there is Peter, from Mirfield in my own constituency, who stopped me in a car park a couple of weeks ago to tell me the harrowing story of his beloved wife, who was diagnosed with metastatic cancer aged 52. The treatment was ineffective and her symptoms were unbearable. She took an overdose of her medication, and Peter found her and took her to hospital. She recovered and he brought her home, but the following day she made another attempt to take her own life, in a way that is too awful to describe. Peter found her dead, and he spent the next eight hours being questioned by the police.

It is estimated that more than 600 terminally ill people take their own lives every year. Often patients will store up medication. Josh, a 33-year-old from Huddersfield went to coach his local kids’ rugby team one Saturday and came back to tell his mum all about it. He found her dead. Lisa, who was terminally ill, had stored up her medication and taken her own life.

Our former colleague Paul Blomfield, the previous MP for Sheffield Central, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue since his dad Harry took his own life in 2014, alone in his garage, after being diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. Language matters: Harry was not suicidal; he loved life, but he had watched too many of his friends have lingering, degrading deaths and he did not want that for himself. But, like the others, he could not tell Paul and his family of his plan, as they would have been complicit and could have faced prosecution. How many precious days and weeks did Harry miss out on as a result of having to take action while he was still physically able to do so? Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

What I have been struck by in recent weeks as I have listened to Members from across the House is the clear agreement that the current situation is neither sustainable nor dignified. Almost everyone in this House agrees that the status quo is unacceptable in terms of dignity, palliative care and end of life. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is about how we depart from the unacceptable situation that we currently face? Is today’s vote not the first stage of an important discussion about we improve the end of life for hundreds and hundreds of people across this country?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am setting out what we are dealing with now. This cannot be right, and surely we have a duty to do something about it.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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