Mr Speaker has authorised a waiver under the sub judice resolution to allow references to certain cases in this debate, as the issues relate to matters of national importance.

Seely questions about London-based law firms willing to sell intimidatory legal threats as part of their services.

Kinnock suggests introducing a foreign agents registration Act, including lawyers acting on behalf of hostile regimes.

Loughton proposes limiting legal actions to one attempt per case to prevent attrition and intimidation tactics.

Mr. Byrne argued that UK courts are being manipulated by Russian-linked oligarchs through strategic legal actions against public participants, undermining the effectiveness of investigative journalism and democratic processes. He proposed SLAPP-back laws, a public figure defence in defamation cases, sanctions for vexatious litigants, a defamation defence fund, and regulatory rules to ensure law firms adhere to good litigation principles.

Neill emphasised the importance of judicial independence and the need to balance it with addressing abuse. He discussed the case of Charlotte Leslie as an example of intimidation, highlighting the need for courts to protect themselves without undermining judicial independence. He mentioned the High Level Panel's recommendation for a consultation on anti-SLAPP laws and the cab rank rule which obliges barristers to take on cases regardless of their opinion of the client.

Gale asked Neill about regulatory bodies' willingness or ability to take action against law firms involved in abusive litigation, seeking ways to bring these firms 'to heel'.

Seely tested arguments on systemic failure that allows a corrupting industry to grow and raised concerns about the role of middlemen in legal cases involving organised crime. He emphasised the need for scrutiny of lawyers involved in these cases.

Byrne agreed with Neill on the importance of judicial independence and highlighted specific examples of financial discrepancies in legal cases, suggesting a weakness that needs addressing to ensure understanding of the source of funds.

Litigations against public participation are abusive lawsuits aimed at shutting down acts of public participation. Apsana Begum was cleared in Snaresbrook Crown Court after a case she viewed as vexatious litigation pursued to shut her down as a socialist MP and survivor of domestic abuse. The legal action cost £90,000 of taxpayers' money, with conflicts of interest evident from the outset. Her case highlighted issues within the legal system dealing with domestic abuse. She was aggressively cross-examined in court, leading to significant personal trauma, and media scrutiny fuelled Islamophobic abuse. Begum emphasised the need for political freedom and accountability, noting that defamation cases are rarely accessible to working-class individuals. She calls for addressing the tone of public debate influenced by media outlets.

We are now dealing with a wholly different scale of abuse, including money laundering and investment by dirty money from Russia, Azerbaijan, other former Soviet Union countries, and the middle east. There is an unacceptable link between those carrying the money bags and Putin’s Kremlin, which is aiding in suppressing free speech. We need to introduce anti-SLAPP laws and proper controls to protect those who seek to investigate and publish the truth.

There is a growing problem of global kleptocracy where wealthy individuals, possibly gained wealth through dubious means, are using our legal system to avoid scrutiny. SLAPPs undermine democracy by silencing investigative journalists and whistleblowers. ENRC issued several SLAPPs to silence and stop an investigation since 2013 without reaching the courts. We must examine London as a centre for laundering dirty money and the role of law firms in defending such organisations. The Government needs to review SLAPPs regulation without delay.

Expresses concern over the use of UK courts by corrupt actors, including organised crime and oligarchs. Suggests that bad money and bad law corrupt the system and proposes reforms such as anti-SLAPP legislation and a foreign lobbying Act. Cites examples of journalists and campaigners facing financial destruction through legal intimidation tactics. Advocates for transparency in the activities of firms involved in these practices.

The hon. Member Aaron Bell expressed concerns about legal intimidation, highlighting the case of Walleys Quarry landfill in his constituency and describing how it is run by a convicted criminal. He also raised issues around libel laws being used to silence journalists and discussed the misuse of the Data Protection Act and judicial review tactics against regulators like the Serious Fraud Office. He proposed a parliamentary inquiry into legal intimidation and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and suggested that changes are needed in the legal rulebook, including anti-SLAPP laws and an overhaul of regulations applicable to the legal profession.

The hon. Member Damian Collins intervened to discuss extending parliamentary privilege to protect whistleblowers who come to give evidence to a Committee, suggesting that any whistleblower invited to a parliamentary Committee should be protected in the act of giving evidence.

The hon. Member Bob Seely intervened, advocating for an update on parliamentary privilege with absolute clarity on Committees, broadcast, and the relationship between talking about things in Parliament and discussing them outside.

The right hon. Member David Davis intervened to discuss the need for updating rules around subject access requests on this House, emphasising that he would go to prison before giving away any information on debating in Parliament.

Congratulates the right hon. Members for securing the debate and acknowledges the contributions of others, emphasising the importance of freedom of expression within legal constraints. Expresses concern over the high costs associated with using law courts to seek redress for defamation, highlighting that it is often unaffordable for most individuals. Criticises the increasing trend of wealthy entities in England using courts to silence critics through threats or actual litigation, leading to a skewed judicial system that prioritises financial might over justice. Urges for a legal system that serves the population with accessibility, fairness, transparency, consistency and just outcomes rather than being accessible only to those with deep pockets. Advocates for open discourse and truth as an antidote to misinformation and disinformation. Highlights proposals by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition such as accelerating the disposal of SLAPPs, deterring their use through sanctions, and protecting individuals from SLAPP tactics.

Andrew Slaughter thanks the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate on lawfare and SLAPPs. He acknowledges previous speakers who have raised issues related to free speech, domestic violence, media power, and prosecutors' roles. He emphasises that SLAPPs are an increasing feature in UK courts, aiming to silence public participation by using legal harassment tools. Slaughter calls for the Minister to acknowledge the problem and commit to finding a solution, suggesting measures such as clearer judicial guidance, better regulation of the legal profession, and potential legislation.

Congratulates fellow MPs on securing debate; discusses sub judice ruling and the importance of transparency and integrity in courts; highlights the contributions of legal services to the economy (£29.6 billion GVA, £36 billion revenue); acknowledges rare instances where law is weaponised as SLAPPs but calls for a balanced approach; outlines actions taken by Government including reforms under Defamation Act 2013 to curb libel tourism and ongoing monitoring of anti-SLAPP efforts; emphasises the importance of free speech under the Bill of Rights consultation; mentions collaboration with international bodies like the Council of Europe and Media Freedom Coalition to combat SLAPPs.

Acknowledged the formidability of the debate, commended contributions from other MPs like Bob Seely, Aaron Bell, Apsana Begum, Liam Byrne, and Sir Roger Gale. Emphasised the need for fair rules in a game where one side has immense resources compared to the Government's resources. Called for special attention beyond just consultations on Bills of Rights, citing complexity as an issue. Recommended focusing on best practices from other places such as anti-SLAPP legislation.

Described the debate as one of the most remarkable in 18 years, highlighting cross-party consensus and practical details. Urged the Minister to maintain focus despite challenges, likening the current situation to a shattered dream of a common European home. Challenged the Government to rise to champion freedom, rights, and free speech.