Hansard records that Baroness Stowell of Beeston introduced the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill in the House of Lords on 16 June. The entry says the bill would make provision about the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of expression, and that it was read a first time and ordered to be printed.
The printed Lords bill shows the proposed filter. A defendant in a claim relating to publication, speech or other free-expression activity could apply for early determination if the subject matter is one of public interest. The claim would be stayed while the application was decided, and could be dismissed before trial if the claimant failed to show it was more likely than not to succeed.
That is the core legal move. A SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, is not just a weak claim; it is litigation used to burden speech through cost, delay and risk. The bill tries to shift the early burden onto claimants once a public-interest speech claim is identified, while preserving a safety valve: the court must not dismiss the case if the likely harm is serious enough that the public interest in letting it continue outweighs the public interest in ending it before trial.
The cost provisions are as important as the dismissal test. The Lords bill says a successful defendant should receive costs on an indemnity basis unless the court considers that inappropriate. It also limits a claimant's ability to recover costs for an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP application, allows security for costs where appropriate, and lets the court impose cost penalties where disproportionate conduct prolongs proceedings or creates unnecessary costs.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Sir John Whittingdale, a Conservative MP and former culture secretary, was expected to introduce a separate Commons bill. The Guardian reported that Whittingdale presented his Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill on 17 June and that it is due to be debated in November. Stowell's Lords bill and Whittingdale's Commons bill are private members' bills, so neither is government legislation, but the Guardian reported that Labour ministers were understood to be supportive and that Ministry of Justice advice could be offered on drafting.