Early day motions (EDMs), formal motions submitted in principle for debate in the House of Commons, can sometimes lack gravity as well as credibility. MPs have in the past seen fit to spend your money extolling the virtues of Dolly Parton’s oeuvre and the quality of Stornoway’s black pudding. Not for nothing are EDMs known as ‘parliamentary graffiti’.

It is nevertheless true that many raise important and valuable points to which the house ought to pay serious attention. More than 40 MPs seem to believe that David Anderson MP’s EDM condemning serial-litigants.com falls into this category. They contend that the site could be used to screen claimants unfairly (see news).

This surely does the site’s founders a disservice and arguably falls into the category of thoughtless lawyer-bashing.

Serial litigants are a growing problem in the employment sphere, with the worst offenders trawling the internet for job ads that might form the basis for a claim. Gordon Turner is quite correct to argue that such people are making a ‘mockery of justice’ and costing the public purse as well as employers.

Lawyers representing employers are perfectly entitled to avail themselves of this information. Some serial litigants simply drop their case once confronted with knowledge that the respondent is aware of their history of serial claims. So much the better.