Markus Andrews

The government has vowed to stop Russian oligarchs “abusing” the courts to silence critics with a series of reforms to protect free speech.Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised to tackle what he described as the “chilling effect” of a “new kind of lawfare” being used by the super-rich who can afford to threaten legal action against journalists trying to expose wrongdoing.Justice secretary Dominic Raab, who confirmed earlier this month he would be bringing forward the proposals, said the government was “taking action” to end the “bullying and protect our free press”.The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said wealthy “corrupt elites” and powerful corporations had been “put on notice by the Government” as it set out plans to speed up changes to rules on so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).It comes after Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called on the Prime Minister to fast-track new laws to stop Russian oligarchs using their vast wealth and SLAPPs to avoid sanctions and criticism through the courts.Mr Johnson said: “The ability of a free press to hold the powerful to account is fundamental to our democracy and as a former journalist I am determined we must never allow criticism to be silenced.“For the oligarchs and super-rich who can afford these sky-high costs the threat of legal action has become a new kind of lawfare. We must put a stop to its chilling effect.”Mr Raab said: “The government will not tolerate Russian oligarchs and other corrupt elites abusing British courts to muzzle those who shine a light on their wrongdoing.“We’re taking action to put an end to this bullying and protect our free press.”Court checks and tougher laws could be brought in to curb the use of the “controversial” lawsuits which “typically involve wealthy people or large businesses using the threat of endless legal action and associated costs to pressure their opponents under defamation and privacy laws.”The tactic is “increasingly being used to intimidate journalists, authors and campaigners to stifle legitimate criticism and prevent the publication of critical stories and books”, the MoJ said.The government has launched a consultation on the plans – which could include updating defamation laws to strengthen the public interest defence available to protect those who publish private information from being sued if it was done for the public good.

For too long the super-rich have got away with abusing the law to bully journalists and undermine media freedomMichelle Stanistreet, National Union of JournalistsMinisters, who want to bring in changes as soon as possible, are also considering capping the costs claimants can recover to try to stop people “weaponising the high cost of litigation to stifle free speech”.They may also be required to prove “actual malice” by a defendant in libel claims as part of a bid to “deter spurious claims”.Other measures could see courts able to throw out claims seen to be using such tactics early on in proceedings and impose bans, called Civil Restraint Orders, to prevent people from bringing repeated legal challenges.The move follows news the High Court dismissed a libel claim brought by Kazakh mining giant Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) against Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis about passages in his book Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering The World.Often the purpose of SLAPPs is to “suppress publications without a case ever coming to court and being reported” so ministers will be “assessing the evidence to understand how widespread the problem is before deciding the best course of action”, the MoJ said.Unions, industry groups and lawyers welcomed the plans.Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: “For too long the super-rich have got away with abusing the law to bully journalists and undermine media freedom.”Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, said: “It is essential that laws are strengthened and practical deterrents are put in place to ensure that journalists – as well as campaigners, academics and authors – are able to fulfil their role in keeping the public informed without fear of intimidation or harassment.”Law Society of England and Wales president I. Stephanie Boyce described the use of SLAPPs as “controversial”, adding: “It is in the public interest that our justice system works for all people regardless of their means and produces fair outcomes.” More

Boris Johnson’s government has ditched plans to limit MPs’ earnings from second jobs in a major rethink over the issue which sparked a sleaze scandal at Westminster.Ministers previously said they backed “reasonable” limits on earnings outside parliament following the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal and outrage over fellow Tory Geoffrey Cox making almost £1m from legal work in the past year.But the government has now rejected the idea of imposing time limits on outside work as “impractical”, and said a cap on the amount earned would unfairly stop MPs doing jobs which do not bring “undue influence”.In a submission to the Commons standards committee – currently consulting on new rules for second jobs – the government revealed that it did not want to see any such limits.No 10 chief of staff Steve Barclay and Commons leader Mark Spencer said: “It is the government’s initial view that the imposition of fixed constraints such as time limits on the amount of time that members can spend on outside work would be impractical.”They added: “The imposition of time limits would not necessarily serve to address recent concerns over paid advocacy and the primary duty of MPs to serve their constituents.”On the amount MPs’ can earn, Mr Barclay and Mr Spencer told the committee: “In respect of a cap on earnings from outside work to impose such a limit could serve to prohibit activities which do not bring undue influence to bear on the political system.”The senior ministers added: “Earnings from activities such as writing books for example, would not preclude members from meeting their principal duty to their constituents.”It is a sharp contrast to remarks made by ministers in the wake of the Paterson lobbying scandal in October and November.Deputy prime minister Dominic Raab said the plan to restrict second jobs “within reasonable limits” could see a cap place on earnings.And trade minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan suggested that imposing a limit of between 10 and 20 hours a week on second jobs would be reasonable.Despite ministers’ proposals about firm limits on either hours or earnings, Downing Street backed away from plans to control earnings in late November.The prime minister’s official spokesperson said Mr Johnson was “not putting forward a set of proposals for parliament to follow” and changes would need to be agreed on a cross-party basis.Mr Barclay and Mr Spencer said the government does still support reforms to restrict the type of second jobs MPs are allowed to take as part of a crackdown on lobbying – but did not offer any suggestions as to what prohibited work should be.The committee on standards, chaired by Labour MP Chris Bryant, has said that MPs should be banned from “paid parliamentary advice, consultancy, or strategy services” as part of its proposals for a change in the code of conduct.Mr Bryant’s committee has also raised the possibility of limits on outside earnings and the time MPs should be allowed to spend on second jobs, but has conceded that this would need cross-party backing.Labour said it backed a ban on directorships and paid consultancy, and said MPs must get the chance to vote on measures put forward by the standards committee to “toughen up the system”.Thangam Debbonaire, Labour’s shadow Commons Leader, claimed Mr Johnson had “repeatedly allowed his own MPs to put their own private business interests ahead of their constituents”.She added: “He can’t just row back on his promises to tighten up the rules on second jobs just because he is in a spot of bother with his backbenchers.”Several Conservative MPs have responded to the committee by rubbishing proposals to limit to second jobs.In his own submission, Tory backbencher Craig Whittaker described some of the committee’s ideas as “just plain ridiculous” and “barking mad”. More

A Labour MP is to share a stage with Nigel Farage at the launch of a campaign against action on climate change.Graham Stringer, who also campaigned for Brexit with the former Ukip leader, is billed to appear at the launch of a campaign against reaching net zero.He will appear alongside other right-wing talking heads and media personalities such as Reform UK leader Richard Tice and the broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer.The MP for Blackley and Broughton has a history of climate denialism – in 2014 voting against accepting the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.He is also a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK’s most prominent organisation promoting climate change denialism.The planned appearance has angered party activists, but it has so far received a relatively sedate response from Labour’s leadership.Approached by The Independent, a Labour spokesperson refused to be drawn on whether Mr Stringer could face any sanction or lose the whip. In a statement, the spokesperson focused on Mr Farage’s views on the war in Ukraine: “The Labour Party unequivocally condemns Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and is unwavering in our support for the Ukrainian people, and we’ve been clear about our views on Labour MPs sharing platforms with those who don’t take that view,” the spokesperson said.Climate activists in the Labour Party contrasted Keir Starmer’s response with the strict treatment of left-wing MPs last month for stepping out of line on Ukraine. Aden Harris, a spokesperson for the Labour for a Green New Deal group said: “If there are two things which might define the Starmer leadership it’s failing to take climate change seriously and obsessively picking battles with the left of his own party.”He’s in real danger of displaying his commitment to both of these themes in one incident here: he’s taken heavy-handed action against left MPs who step one iota out of line, but is now silent on a Labour MP sharing a platform with far-right figures to espouse pro-apocalypse politics.“In 2019 and 2021 the Labour Party backed motions calling for a Green New Deal, involving a mass expansion of renewable energy. It’s time Starmer reminded his own MPs of this policy, one which enjoys widespread support across the party and across the country.”And Labour MP Diane Abbott said: “How come right-wing Labour MPs are allowed to share a platform with Farage, but left-wing MPs are not even allowed to sign an anti-war letter?”Mr Farage is using the event in Bolton next Saturday to launch a campaign for a referendum on the government’s net zero target.Some right-wingers inside and outside the Conservative party, sceptical of state intervention, are increasingly agitating to scrap the net zero policy – which scientists say is necessary to prevent global catastrophe.Mr Farage and others argue that arguing averting climate change will increase bills, butt the Committee on Climate Change has dismissed this arguments and says investment in green energy is in fact the best way to bring down bills – and that new fossil fuel drilling will not help.Scientists say reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the latest is a requirement to avert catastrophic climate change in the coming decades. More

The UK government’s £400m debt repayment to Iran has been “ring-fenced” for humanitarian aid and will not fund terrorism, Foreign Office minister James Cleverly has said.The release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori from Iranian detention follows months of intensive diplomatic negotiations between London and Tehran – including the eventual payment of an outstanding debt owed by Britain to the regime.Mr Cleverly said British negotiators had made sure that the money would be spent on “significant and meaningful” humanitarian work – saying it had been the only way to comply with international sanctions.“We owed this debt, we accepted that debt. Obviously, the sanctions position made it incredibly difficult – you cannot just write a cheque,” the minister told Sky News.Mr Cleverly added: “The details of how we have done it have to remain confidential – but it has taken a huge amount of work to come up with a method of ensuring that money is for humanitarian purposes and that it conforms to the sanctions regime.”He also told Times Radio: “This has been ring-fenced for humanitarian purposes. Because of international money laundering laws, because of UK money laundering laws, we had to make sure that wouldn’t be money that would be used for terrorism.”Asked whether he could be confident the settlement would not be used to buy arms, Mr Cleverly replied: “We have taken every precaution to make sure this is used exclusively for humanitarian requirements.”Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Mr Ashoori touched down on British soil at just after 1am on Thursday, as Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe hugged and kissed her young daughter and Mr Ashoori’s family sobbed.Asked why it took so long to secure the homecoming, and whether the debt issue could have been resolved sooner, Mr Cleverly said the prisoner release was “incredibly complicated” – and was not necessarily connected to the £400m payment.Challenged by Sky News host Kay Burley on whether the debt payment was essentially “ransom” money, the minister said: “We have always made it clear that it is not linked … What connections the Iranians make is up to them.”Asked about Mr Johnson’s now notorious remarks from 2017 – in which he incorrectly stated that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching people journalism” – Mr Cleverly insisted that his comments “made no difference”.The minister defended the PM and said the Iranian regime was the “sole party responsible for the suffering these people have endured over the years … I have absolutely no doubt these comments made no difference.”Mr Cleverly also rejected a claim made by Nazanin’s husband Richard Ratcliffe – who conducted hunger strikes – that she would not have been released if he had followed Foreign Office advice to stay quiet.“My admiration for Richard is boundless. I disagree with him on this point,” said the minister. All experience tells us that the less visible, the less high profile, often the easier it is [to secure release]. Obviously the situation around Nazanin was high profile … But our advice is there for a reason.” More

Labour attempts to compare Russia to Saudi Arabia are “ridiculously distasteful”, Foreign Office minister James Cleverly has said as he sought to defend Boris Johnson’s visit to the kingdom.Sir Keir Starmer has accused Mr Johnson of “going cap in hand from dictator to dictator,” after the prime minister went to the Gulf in search of alternatives to Russian energy supplies.The PM failed to secure commitments from the Saudis to step oil production on Wednesday on a visit overshadowed by the announcement of three further executions.But Mr Cleverly insisted the trip was “absolutely the right thing to do” in a bid to alleviate the energy crisis – and praised the “liberalisation” in the Saudis’ treatment of women in recent years.The minister told the BBC: “Equating any country with the behaviour of Vladimir Putin is ridiculously distasteful. We need to recognise that Saudi is an incredibly influential country in the region, it is a significant oil and gas producer.”Grilled on the Saudis’ human rights record on Sky News, Mr Cleverly said: “We do have, regularly, very frank conversations with them about this. It is a very influential country in the region and the world. But we do not hold back when we have these conversations with the Saudis, and others.”The Foreign Office minister told host Kay Burley: “There has been a huge liberalisation in the lives of women in Saudi Arabia. The liberalisation of the role of women has been pacey.”Sir Keir accused the government of a “slapdash” approach to energy supply on Wednesday. The Labour leader added: “Going cap in hand from dictator to dictator is not an energy strategy”.Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner accused the prime minister of going on a “begging mission”, and claimed the government was relying on “another murderous dictator to keep the lights on”.But Mr Cleverly rejected the criticism and insisted that it was important to “recognise changes have been made” in Saudi Arabia, adding: “We’d like them to go further, we’d like them to go faster.”He added: “But ultimately it was absolutely the right thing to do for the prime minister try to alleviate some of the pressure that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has puts on oil and gas markets.”The prime minister said he raised human rights with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the United Arab Emirates’ Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed during his meetings.Mr Johnson also said he had obtained an “understanding” from the Saudis that instability in world markets from a spike in energy prices from the Ukraine war was not in their interests.But asked whether he had secured assurances that the oil-rich Gulf state would turn on the taps, Mr Johnson could say only that it was a decision for them.Mr Cleverly said only that he “hoped” the Saudis would still increase production. “I haven’t had a full debrief from the trip,” he told the BBC.The minister added: “Obviously, the Saudis will need to go through whatever internal processes they have and probably talk to their partners in OPEC.”Meanwhile, No 10 has refused to deny that Mr Johnson uses WhatsApp to communicate with Mohammed bin Salman.Asked if it is correct that the PM has kept open his WhatsApp link, his spokesman claimed “security matters” prevented him from answering. More

A crackdown to stop Russian oligarchs using the UK legal system to “muzzle” critics is being promised by the government, after criticism of years of delay.Dominic Raab is setting out proposals to tackle so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) – high-cost legal claims to threaten and silence journalists and activists.The move follows criticism that Vladimir Putin’s “rich cronies” are using UK courts to prevent exposure of their activities by targeting opponents with crippling costs.A Commons inquiry heard this week how the system is “stacked in favour of deep-pocketed” oligarchs, who employ leading London law firms.The criticism came from Catherine Belton, the author of the book Putin’s People, who faced five legal cases, including one brought by Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich.“It’s the chilling effect of the costs,” she told MPs, adding: “The way the system has been constructed is that the system is so lengthy that it will end up costing your publisher more than £1m, sometimes £2m.The journalist Tom Burgis faced a libel claim brought by a Kazakh-owned mining firm for his book Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the world, although the High Court dismissed it.Now Mr Raab, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, will set out a series of options for change:* Strengthening the ‘public interest defence’ in the 2013 Defamation Act 2013 – to protect publishers of private information from being sued if it was for the public good.* Capping the costs that claimants can recover – to stop the super-rich, including Russian oligarchs, from ‘weaponising’ the high cost of litigation to stifle free speech.* Introducing a specific requirement for claimants to prove ‘actual malice’ by a defendant in libel cases – to deter spurious claims.* Enabling courts to throw out claims earlier in proceedings and impose Civil Restraint Orders – to prevent people from bringing repeated legal challenges.Mr Raab said: “The government will not tolerate Russian oligarchs and other corrupt elites abusing British courts to muzzle those who shine a light on their wrongdoing.“We’re taking action to put an end to this bullying and protect our free press.”The move was welcomed by the National Union of Journalists, which said it would “consider the detail of these plans”.They should “level the playing field and ensure journalists and media outlets no longer have to face prohibitive costs and deliberate intimidation by wealthy litigants with the deepest of pockets,” said Michelle Stanistreet, its general secretary.“For too long the super-rich have got away with abusing the law to bully journalists and undermine media freedom.”The Ministry of Justice said it would “establish how widespread the problem is before deciding the best course of action”, from the options set out. More

Social media bosses face up to two years in prison if they fail to hand over data on how they use algorithms to decide what users see, under legislation introduced by the UK government.Culture secretary Nadine Dorries said the Online Safety Bill would be “world-leading” after adding new measures aimed at creating strict criminal liability for executives at Silicon Valley’s tech giants.A raft of new offences have been added to the bill to make company managers liable for destroying evidence requested by Ofcom, providing false information or obstructing Britain’s media regulator.Criminal liability for managers at the online giants – which could lead to up to two years in imprisonment or a fine – will also be introduced within two months of the bill coming into effect, more quickly than expected.Ms Dorries said the big social media giants like Facebook and Twitter “haven’t been held to account when harm, abuse and criminal behaviour have run riot on their platforms”.The culture secretary said the algorithms which help decide what sort of content users gets shown based on their online habits – which amplifies harmful content, campaigners say – will come under much closer scrutiny through the new offences.“It’s the algorithms that cause the harm, so this bill will compel those platforms to expose those algorithms to our regulator so they can pick up where the harm is happening and hold those platforms to account,” Ms Dorries told ITV on Wednesday.However, campaign groups have warned that the bill does not go far enough to tackle tech platforms’ business models and algorithms which “prioritise and amplify harmful content”.Alaphia Zoyab, internet reform group Reset’s advocacy director, said the bill “doesn’t do enough to rein in the power of unaccountable Silicon Valley tycoons, whose platforms amplify harmful lies and hate because they drive the most clicks and cash”.Ellen Judson, senior researcher at Demos, said the government’s bill “must do more to hold big tech accountable for the way in which their operations and design of their services are putting people at risk”.The overall aim of the bill is to require online platforms to conform to a duty of care and remove content that is illegal or considered harmful – with fines of up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover among the potential penalties.The bill has been strengthened in recent months, with the addition of several new criminal offences to force social media firms to act on illegal content more quickly.Ms Dorries confirmed last month that offences such as revenge porn, hate crime, fraud, the sale of illegal drugs or weapons, the promotion or facilitation of suicide, people-smuggling and sexual exploitation have been added to the list of priority offences.Cyberflashing will become a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in jail. And there will be new measures to crack down on anonymous trolls to give people more control over who can contact them and what they see online.Ms Dorries is under pressure to explain exactly how the bill will uphold freedom of speech, despite the promise that journalists will be given protections from censorship.There are concerns that encouraging Ofcom and the tech firms to establish a framework for “legal but harmful” content which must be addressed will give social media giants too much leeway in censoring views.But the government has promised that parliament will get to approve what types of “legal but harmful” content platforms must attempt to do more to tackle.Ruth Smeeth, chief executive of the Index on Censorship group, said the free speech protections in the bill “are not worth the paper they are written on”.She said: “The government has admitted to what we’ve been arguing for years. They are doing nothing about the fact that Silicon Valley has a stranglehold on our freedom of speech. In fact, their Online Safety Bill will give it even more muscle to censor our legal content.”The Open Rights Group – worried about the independence of the regulator when it comes to deciding what constitutes harmful material – said it was “Orwellian” and amounted to “state sanctioned censorship of legal content”.Attempting to reassure cynical Tory MPs and campaigners, Ms Dorries claimed the bill would help stop Silicon Valley chiefs being the “supreme arbiters” of freedom of speech online.“We would never pursue legislation that threatens freedom of expression … nor can we maintain the current status quo, where a handful of west coast execs are the supreme arbiters of online speech,” the cabinet minister wrote on ConservativeHome.Meanwhile, Labour said it supported the principles of the bill – but argued that long delays to the legislation had allowed disinformation by Vladimir Putin’s government and others to go unchecked for years.Lucy Powell MP, shadow culture secretary, said: “Delay to the Online Safety Bill has allowed the Russian regime’s disinformation to spread like wildfire. Other groups have watched and learned their tactics … delay up to this point has come with significant cost.” More

Rishi Sunak is under renewed pressure to halt next month’s £13bn rise in National Insurance contributions, after fresh research showed the UK is the only major world economy to be raising taxes on working people during the cost-of-living crisis. Labour called on the chancellor to ditch the 1.25 per cent hike lined up for both employees and employers on 6 April, using money he has reportedly stored away for pre-election sweeteners to voters.The research emerged as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) revealed that soaring inflation means the chancellor will take in an additional £12.5bn from a “stealth tax” in last year’s Budget.When Sunak announced a four-year freeze in income tax thresholds last March, with inflation running around 1 per cent, the measure was expected to raise £8bn.But with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) now above 5 per cent and expected to rise as high as 8 per cent, the IFS said it now amounts to an effective £20.5bn in additional taxes.Tom Waters, a senior research economist for the IFS, said: “Usually tax thresholds go up in line with inflation.“The tax threshold freeze is now on track to be a £20.5bn tax hike – two and a half times what was originally expected. And this comes on top of the £13bn increase in National Insurance contributions (NICs) slated for next month.“This episode highlights the danger with setting tax thresholds in nominal terms for long periods of time – unexpected changes in inflation can make the size of a planned tax rise much bigger or smaller than expected.”Labour Treasury spokesperson Pat McFadden said that the NICs rise alone was equivalent to 0.5 per cent of GDP in additional taxes, at a time when households are facing rocketing bills for essentials like heating, petrol and food.By contrast, the party’s research found that Germany has tax cuts totalling 0.5 per cent of GDP lined up for 2022, Italy 0.2 per cent and France 0.1 per cent.Among other members of the G7 group of leading democracies, Canada and Japan have announced no personal tax rate increases, while the US Congressional Budget Office estimates falling tax revenue for 2022.“There are global factors driving up energy prices and inflation in many countries,” said Mr McFadden.“But what singles out the UK is this government’s decision to impose a tax rise on working people at the same time as energy and food prices are rising.“Why is the government so determined to make the cost of living crisis worse by pressing ahead with these tax rises now, particularly when the Treasury is constantly briefing that the Tory election grid has pencilled in tax cuts before the next election?”Announced in September last year, the NICs hike breached a Conservative manifesto promise not to raise the main personal taxes over the course of the parliament. It will result in a person earning £20,000 seeing NICs increase by £130 a year, and someone on £30,000 a year paying an additional £255.But prime minister Boris Johnson said the levy would help pay for the “biggest catch-up programme in the NHS’ history” as the health service attempts to clear the backlog of treatments delayed because of the Covid pandemic.From April next year, it will be rebranded the Health and Social Care Levy, and over time an increasing proportion will go towards the new cap on care costs designed to ensure that elderly home-owners do not have to sell their property to pay for care.Mr Sunak is coming under growing pressure to ditch the hike, or delay it for a year in the hope the cost-of-living crisis will have abated, including from restive Tory backbenchers worried that he is rising the overall tax take to levels not seen since the 1960s.But the chancellor and prime minister have stood firm, penning a joint article in January to state that they regard the levy as “the right plan” to fix the health and social care system.A HM Treasury spokesperson said: “The Health and Social Care Levy will provide a necessary, permanent source of funding to support the NHS and fix the social care system. “We’re providing around £21bn this financial year and next to help families with the cost of living, including targeted support for energy bills, cutting the Universal Credit taper rate to help those on low incomes keep more of what they earn, and freezes to alcohol and fuel duties to keep costs down. We are also raising the National Living Wage, meaning that people working full-time will see a £1,000 increase in annual earnings.” More