Alex Sobel emphasises the impact of SLAPPs on democracy and free speech, noting that SLAPPs extend beyond journalism and free speech issues to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants. He highlights the UK's attractiveness as a jurisdiction for SLAPPs due to its expensive litigation and claimant-friendly reputation, while other EU countries have taken action against anti-SLAPP legislation. Sobel also mentions the need for new legislation, as the existing protections are limited to economic crime and require a complex process to determine claimant intentions. He calls on the Government to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation to protect public interest speech on various issues such as patient safety, environmental harm, and human rights abuses.

Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom and sponsor of a private Member's Bill against SLAPPs, John Whittingdale emphasises the long-standing issue of SLAPPs in the UK and the need for action. He highlights the UK’s Media Freedom Coalition and the country's rise in the world press freedom index ranking. Whittingdale details the history of SLAPPs, including cases involving James Goldsmith, Robert Maxwell, and Mohamed al-Fayed. He calls for legislation to address the abuse of lawsuits to suppress information that is in the public interest, while also respecting the right to bring defamation actions. Whittingdale expresses hope for cross-party collaboration to bring the legislation forward.

Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, Phil Brickell acknowledges the importance of the debate and the work of the Minister in the previous Government. He provides a case study of Jennifer McAdam, who was threatened with legal action after organising a webinar on OneCoin, a global Ponzi scheme. Brickell discusses the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's approach to SLAPP cases, highlighting the need for a higher bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing. He also mentions a local case involving solicitor Andrew Milne, who threatened a newspaper with legal action to suppress reporting on his actions. Brickell calls for a universal anti-SLAPP law and strong regulatory guidance to ensure lawyers are held accountable for abusive legal tactics.

I am a victim of the Goldsmith foundation, an organisation that targeted journalists who politically disagreed with James Goldsmith. I was sued by Carter-Ruck for exposing a Conservative MP's ties to Saddam Hussein. SLAPPs stifle free speech and undermine the public's right to know information. Although the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is a step forward, it only applies to economic crime reportage, leaving journalists unprotected in other areas. We need clear criteria to identify SLAPPs, a higher merits threshold for likely success at trial, and a filter mechanism for swift disposal of actions that seek to gag individuals.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are designed to intimidate, exhaust, and suppress scrutiny. They are deployed against journalists, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, and ordinary citizens. The case of Clare Rewcastle Brown, who exposed the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, demonstrates the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. Existing protections are insufficient as they leave many people vulnerable. We need a robust statutory framework that dismisses abusive claims at the earliest stage and ensures that powerful individuals cannot escape scrutiny. This should not be a partisan issue; all parties should work constructively to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation.

Markus Campbell-Savours spoke about his constituent Jeff Thomson, who faced legal threats from a rendering plant over a foul odour. He argued that without people like Jeff, who persistently raise issues, change would not occur. He also mentioned the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition's support for Jeff and proposed a simple early dismissal mechanism to protect individuals from SLAPPs.

Brian Leishman discussed the gross inequality in society and the use of SLAPPs by the powerful to intimidate activists and restrict freedom of speech. He highlighted the case of Lucy and Verity Nevitt, who faced legal action for speaking out about sexual assault. Leishman argued that the legal system should not be used as a tool of intimidation and advocated for an end to SLAPPs to equalise the legal system and wider society.

Congratulated the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on leading the debate and thanked the hon. Member for Bolton West for securing the debate. Emphasised that the justice system should not be used by the rich and powerful to silence accusers. Provided examples of cases where SLAPPs have been used to intimidate and coerce individuals, including the case of Heidi and a gentleman connected to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Advocated for universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs, including a filter mechanism, early dismissal procedures, cost protections for defendants, and financial penalties for abusive SLAPP claims. Called on the Minister to confirm the Government’s position on private Members’ Bills containing anti-SLAPP provisions and to outline plans to stamp out these practices.

Free speech is a foundation of free society, enabling whistleblowers and victims to tell their stories, and journalists to hold the powerful accountable. However, wealthy individuals and powerful actors can use the legal system to silence critics and journalists through costly and exhausting litigation, known as SLAPPs. The UK is the most frequent origin of such legal threats, accounting for 31% of cases. SLAPPs have been used to prevent reporting on sexual misconduct and to silence victims of abuse. The previous Government took some steps but the current Government's record is underwhelming, with legislation reportedly shelved due to fears of backlash from some lawyers. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition has provided a legislative framework and there is cross-party support for action. The Government needs to bring forward legislation to protect public interest speech and ensure that wealthy individuals and corporations cannot abuse legal processes to silence legitimate free speech.

Echos gratitude for the debate's facilitation, emphasising the cross-party consensus on the issue of SLAPPs. She outlines that SLAPPs are an abuse of power aimed at silencing critics and undermining freedom of expression and investigative journalism. She highlights the need for a broader definition of SLAPPs and calls for legislative action and a culture change within the legal profession.

Acknowledges the urgency of addressing SLAPPs and expresses gratitude for the contributions made during the debate. He emphasises the need for legislative action through private Members' Bills to protect freedom of expression and ensure public participation is not stifled.