Mr Reed questioned whether the Secretary of State had made an estimate of how much these oligarchs would continue to abuse the current system until May, as they attempt to hide their collaboration with the Kremlin. He also asked about penalties for firms acting in SLAPP cases and what actions are being taken to stop law firms from helping Russian state funding.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement—and so does everyone on Twitter. It certainly marks a major and welcome shift in Conservative party policy. When the Prime Minister was Mayor of London, he actively encouraged oligarchs to pursue vexatious libel claims through the British courts, and it is good to see some belated recognition today of just how wrong that was. We are used to double standards from this Government when it comes to Russian dirty money. Senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, partied with Kremlin-linked oligarchs even as their plundered wealth flooded into London. They buried the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report instead of acting on the threats it exposed to our politics and to our democracy. The reason there has been an increase in this kind of lawsuit—what the Secretary of State called a “glaring inequality of arms”—in this country is that the Conservative party got itself hooked on the Kremlin’s dirty money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) has worked bravely to expose the Conservatives’ increasing dependency on Kremlin-linked oligarchs. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how many Conservative party donors have used a SLAPP to silence free speech? These measures, welcome though they are, are too little, too late. Labour called on the Government to fix this problem way back in January. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) demanded clearer guidance for judges, tougher regulation of law firms, and legislation to control costs so astronomical that no one can afford to stand up to Putin’s bullying billionaires. The Conservatives’ track record is frankly problematic. They ignored the Leveson inquiry when it called for low-cost litigation for claimants and defendants in media cases. Instead, they sided with Putin’s oligarchs against British journalists and campaigners until it was far too late. Putting Putin “on notice” is not enough—the Government must end this corruption now.

I unreservedly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement. This has been a seriously cross-party issue. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has taken a terrific part in it, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and many others have engaged in it, because it is so important: we are talking about a fundamental defence of free speech. This is going to be difficult but it is also going to be urgent. The one point on which I agree with the Opposition spokesman is that dealing with this will be urgent, because it is not just about oligarchs. We have already debated in this Chamber cases like that of Mohamed Amersi—a disgraceful case brought against a former Member of this House. The timetable is important. I unreservedly welcome to this, but will my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of when he expects legislation to come out of the call for evidence he has announced?

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I welcome it, and the sentiments behind the proposed changes. For too long, Russian oligarchs have used their ill-gotten wealth to threaten and silence those who would rightfully seek to expose them. We know that the UK is awash with dirty money, whether it is the London laundromat, golden visa schemes or utilising UK law firms to silence journalists and intimidate activists who rightfully call out their unethical behaviour. Vladimir Ashurkov, a Russian political activist who was an executive director of Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, said that SLAPP lawsuits were “acts of hybrid warfare which are used to weaken the UK’s democracy, judicial system and fundamental freedoms”. Given that we know that Kremlin-linked oligarchs use SLAPP lawsuits to silence criticism and to attempt to control the public narrative, what steps is the UK taking to ensure that we cannot be manipulated to silence free speech, while protecting journalists and political activists? What steps are the Secretary of State and the UK Government taking to name and shame such companies and will specific secondary legislation be proposed to strengthen existing defamation and libel laws?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify what has been a stunningly quick recent phenomenon, bearing in mind the exponential increase in cases in the past year alone. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for discussing this matter with me when I was in office. We could see this trajectory rising at an alarming rate. The Secretary of State is absolutely right now in his consultation to build on the work we did in the Defamation Act 2013, where we raised thresholds to bring libel cases, and strengthening the public interest defence is absolutely the right way to go. Will he undertake to look not only at this phenomenon, but other areas where we see individuals or groups bringing cases purely on the basis that they wish to get disclosure or information from Government that is designed to make some sort of political or power point, as opposed to wanting the merits of the case dealt with by a court?

Acknowledging the positive developments in addressing Russian money, Chris Bryant questions the need for legislation to seize assets such as Chelsea Football Club and emphasises the importance of a proper tender process.

Impressed with the Deputy Prime Minister’s action, Bob Seely highlights the issue of unscrupulous law firms aiding Kremlin neo-fascism and seeks guidance on whether he should continue his private Member's Bill or offer it in evidence to the consultation process.

Joining colleagues in urging swift action, Barry Sheerman emphasises the importance of protecting the transparency necessary to counter the invasion of Ukraine while maintaining a balance with libel law.

Welcoming the measures against SLAPPs, Siobhan Baillie questions how the Government is promoting press freedom more broadly.

Welcoming the statement, Tony Lloyd urges maximum speed while cautioning against getting legislation right. He suggests a presumption that the public interest test is correct and highlights its importance in combating oligarchs.

Warmly welcoming the statement, John Whittingdale questions whether protecting freedom of the press requires international action and asks about discussions with counterparts in other jurisdictions.

Welcoming the statement, Layla Moran highlights her own experience with legal intimidation and questions whether legislation will cover not just oligarchs but anyone using the law to silence truth.

As a former journalist, I welcome the statement on freedom of press and speech. Will the Minister reassure that he will take necessary steps to uphold this freedom?

While welcoming the statement, Clive Efford raises concern over SLAPP litigation against Government agencies like the Serious Fraud Office. He asks if protection mechanisms will be considered in future legislation.

Kevin Hollinrake praises the statement and mentions whistleblowers as key in identifying economic crimes. He asks if protections for whistleblowers will be included in future legislation.

Jim Shannon thanks Dominic Raab for his commitment to legal rights across the UK. He asks if the proposals go far enough in protecting freedom of speech and preventing financial inequalities from impacting legal outcomes.

Alexander Stafford denounces corrupt elites using litigation to suppress legal criticism. He asks if the Minister agrees this type of litigation has no place in society and what other steps are being taken against dodgy elites.