Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I also attended the 2023 debate in Westminster Hall with her and other Members, and I fully support the campaign. During the earlier statement on resident doctors, she referred to standing on a picket line. Like her, I have stood on the picket line along with nurses and others in Newtownards on many occasions.

The imprisonment and removal of redundancy packages would not normally occur in any instance where a workforce had decided to strike, and many of these workers never regained stable employment. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a case to be answered in terms of the regaining of finance, and that more must be done to seek justice for the 37 workers who still suffer today and have not had justice?

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree: justice does need to be served, and the 37 have been affected because of the financial demands put on them because of the action they took. They were striking workers, not criminals, and they should never have gone to prison.

I pay tribute to Paul Heron and Clare Lash-Williams, who are providing legal advice for the campaign, with the intention to launch a successful legal appeal against the original charges. I also thank GMB union for its support; I look forward to its continued support going forward.

In 1984, faced with sweeping redundancies and the decline of the shipbuilding industry, workers at Cammell Laird occupied their workplace, including a gas rig and a Royal Navy frigate, to resist job losses and defend their livelihoods and communities. Management’s response, backed by the Government at the time, was swift and very heavy-handed. The workers were threatened with dismissal, the loss of their redundancy payment, and even police intervention. They were deliberately targeted to send a warning to others—an attempt by the state to break industrial action and demoralise workers taking strike action across the country.

The workers reluctantly agreed to end their occupation in September 1984 after weeks, when their water supply was cut off. They were immediately arrested for failing to turn up to court for an earlier judicial review hearing. They were convicted in their absence and sent to Walton jail, Merseyside’s category A high-security prison. Their appeal at the High Court in October 1984 was presided over by Lord Lawton, who had been a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, had visited Hitler in the 1930s and had been selected to run for Parliament. He was a long-standing enemy of the trade union movement and would have been only too happy to uphold the unprecedented 30-day prison sentence for contempt of court, a grossly disproportionate punishment.

The whole case stinks of an establishment stitch-up. There were plenty of similar cases at the time, throughout the movement. Not even the National Union of Mineworkers leader, Arthur Scargill, was imprisoned, despite being convicted of the same charge. The only comparable case of an imprisonment of a large group of workers due to a national dispute was the Shrewsbury 24, and 47 years later, their convictions have finally been overturned by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

When the 37 were charged with contempt of court and sent to a high-security prison, Liverpool city council was locked in a fierce battle with the Thatcher Government of the time over a £30 million cut to funding from central Government, after the Government deemed the council to have set an illegal budget. The council remained defiant, adopting the mantra. “We would rather break the law than break the poor.” More than anything, the council focused on building council homes and creating jobs—work unmatched by any other authority at the time. That was the political environment with which the Cammell Laird 37 had to contend.

The workers fought proudly not only for their jobs, but for the future of the shipyard. Their only crime—if it can be called a crime—was defending their livelihood. The strikers ensured that there was absolutely no damage to any property during their occupation. They even allowed Ministry of Defence inspectors into the occupation to inspect a frigate and to carry out maintenance work. Were they criminals? No. They were responsible trade union members, carrying out legitimate action at their own workplace, and respecting the property of which they were in control. For that, they were incarcerated in prison for 30 days.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign resonates deeply with my constituents in Liverpool Riverside, and with people across Merseyside. The 37 are widely considered to be heroes for standing up to Thatcher’s policies of managed decline, which destroyed our industries and decimated our communities. Their struggle took place against the backdrop of the broader union fight-backs, and parallel injustices, such as Orgreave and Hillsborough, in which ordinary people paid the price for fighting back against a Government hellbent on crushing working-class communities. Four decades later, the fight for justice continues. Sadly, half of the 37 have died while waiting for their names to be cleared. Action is needed now to ensure that the surviving workers receive justice, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I grew up in Liverpool during the Thatcher years. The neo-liberal policies enforced on our city would define us for years to come. Liverpool in the 1980s was highly dependent on the docks for work. We suffered unemployment rates of almost 50%. Our communities were deeply aware that the fight for jobs was not just about improving the current situation, but about preserving jobs and workplaces for generations to come. Thatcher’s privatisation drive resulted in British shipbuilders going from employing 62,000 workers in 1982 to just 5,000 workers five years later. In Merseyside alone, we lost 34,000 manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 1981 due to Thatcher’s policy of managed decline. It was this hollowing out of industry that these workers were trying to defeat. They deserve full recognition and gratitude for the struggle they waged, and an apology for the disgraceful way that they were treated.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign, like the campaigns on the Shrewsbury 24 and the miners’ strike, and so many other union struggles of the time, goes to the very heart of how Thatcher’s Government responded to workers who dared to stand up for themselves. I remember the police brutality inflicted on striking miners at Orgreave, followed by lies and cover-ups by politicians, the police and the media. I am proud that this Labour Government have now committed to a full inquiry into Orgreave. It follows logically that there should be a public inquiry into the jailing of Cammell Laird workers—a miscarriage of justice with many obvious parallels. However, the priority must be releasing the Government papers to help the legal team clear the names of the 37.

There is no doubt that this was a major miscarriage of justice, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government. No other industrial action resulted in so many men being sent to prison. The 30-day sentence was grossly unfair; by the time the men were released, they had lost their jobs, workplace rights, redundancy payments, and pension payments. Research by the GMB shows that at least one of the men could have lost £120,000 or more. Some were blacklisted for many years and struggled to find work afterwards, causing immense suffering and economic hardship. For that reason, we believe that there should be a public inquiry.

The limited records from the National Archives and Thatcher’s private papers demonstrate that Ministers were determined to privatise the building of warships, cut the number of shipbuilding yards, and sell off the remainder of the state-owned yards. The Cammell Laird 37 knew that was what they were up against—a Government hellbent on privatisation at any cost. It is that systemic and ideologically driven undermining of the British shipbuilding industry by a group of Ministers determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, which warrants a public inquiry, so that the 37 and all those impacted can understand why the treatment they received was so uniquely punitive and destructive.

A public inquiry is not merely symbolic; it is essential. It is crucial to understand how and why a Government acting through Ministers and the court imposed such punitive measures on ordinary citizens for exercising their right to industrial action. We call for the actions of Ministers from the time to be investigated, and for all the remaining records to be made public. That includes the Ministry of Defence and British Gas contracts, and any Crown Estate leases relevant for a future appeal. Following a GMB campaign almost a decade ago, the European Parliament committee on petitions called on the UK Government to release all relevant papers, but that has never been actioned. More importantly, we want a formal Government apology to these workers.

The legal team believes that the court was given inaccurate information at the time of the initial prosecutions, and that the workers may not have been lawfully dismissed. It argues that Cammell Laird may have had no legal standing to bring the claims that led to the injunctions, and that the occupation may have occurred on land that was not under the company’s control. These claims are groundbreaking, and, with the help of the Minister, we can ensure that the campaign’s legal team has access to the appropriate documentation to finally bring about justice for the 37.

During the 2023 Westminster Hall debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the Justice Minister at the time stated that

“this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems.”

He also confirmed that he understood that

“nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 301WH.]

He stated that other Departments, including the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirmed that they “do not believe” they hold any relevant records, which I find quite astounding. However, the Cammell Laird campaigners believe that an exhaustive search has not been undertaken. Papers must exist relating to the closure, and every effort should be made to identify and release them.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that announcement has been made first to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?

[Sarah Sackman]

Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I met him with officials just last week to discuss his constituent’s case and the issue more broadly. As I have said, we will continue to look at Sir Brian’s recommendation in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This is an issue that we want to look at and act on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One implication of an unspent conviction is that those who have a passport and want to go on holiday suddenly find that they cannot do so due to something that happened 25 or 30 years ago when they were younger and under 16. I have had a number of cases like that in Northern Ireland this past while. It is wrong that those who have committed a misdemeanour, as it was, find that it impacts them 30 years later. I had a constituent who wanted to go to Australia. After contacting a Minister we were able to get him there, but the impact on him and others is great. Will the Minister work with those in Northern Ireland dealing with immigration, in the Passport Office in particular, to ensure that unspent convictions from years ago are not held against people subsequently?

[Jake Richards]

I agree with the hon. Member’s remarks. Many Members across the House will have had constituents come to them in similar circumstances, and it is deeply worrying and troubling. This is complex, because it involves different systems and public safety is always paramount for this Government. We are absolutely looking at this issue and will report back to the House when we have made progress.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

No.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Three hundred and twenty-one violent or sexual offenders either failed to come back to jail after being temporarily freed, returned later or breached the terms of their licence last year—the highest number for years. The number was 177 four years ago and it was 59 in 2014-15. Again, I ask the Secretary of State this question: will he commit to all the necessary changes, including updating data and technology in the present system, as a matter of public safety and public confidence?

Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member; the Vodafone case, which involved franchisees across the UK, is another example of how litigation funding can help.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case in July 2023, which involved a claim against truck manufacturers for anti-competitive behaviour, rendered many third-party funding agreements unenforceable by bringing them in scope of another type of legal funding agreement, damage-based agreements. The impact of the judgment on the litigation funding market has been two years of instability and a lack of clarity about its contractual operating terms. The last Government sought to remedy the issue by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which had reached Second Reading in the House of Lords immediately prior to the election.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he was right to do so. Although no win, no fee seems like the only reasonable option for those seeking compensation in the civil courts to fund their cases, they can be easily taken advantage of, so does he agree that we need a framework that allows for a reasonable exchange of risk and benefit to consumers, rather than putting the ability to fight for justice just beyond their reach?

[Sir Julian Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member; I will come to some protections that I think he might be attracted by.

The last election stopped the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which was going to overturn the PACCAR judgment, but on 1 August 2024, Lord Ponsonby said in a written answer to a parliamentary question that the new Labour Government

“recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in ensuring access to justice.

Following the PACCAR judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements…The Government is keen to ensure access to justice in large-scale and expensive cases, whilst also setting up adequate safeguards to protect claimants from unfair terms.

The Civil Justice Council is considering these questions and others in its review of third-party litigation funding, and hopes to report in summer 2025. The Government will take a more comprehensive view of any legislation to address issues in the round once that review is concluded.”

The Civil Justice Council review concluded in June this year. The litigation funding industry, businesses and the legal sector await the Government’s response. The current lack of response to the report is causing significant uncertainty to the sector and additional costs for those fighting for businesses and consumers. Although the Government are inevitably busy on many fronts, action on this is needed now and will be positive for the UK economy.

I will return to the recommendations of the CJC report shortly, but I just want to emphasise two broader points. First, the legal sector in the UK was worth about £52 billion in 2024, up by about 10% on the previous year. Litigation funding is estimated to have quadrupled since 2013, with more than £1 billion capital estimated as currently available to litigation. In 2023, PwC UK predicted growth at a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% over five years.

On a global basis, the global litigation funding market was approximately $20 billion in 2025 and is expected to be closer to $49 billion in 2035. Legal services with litigation funding are an important component and a vital export opportunity as the UK continues to be the leading centre for global disputes of all kinds and can stand to win significant revenues from deals such as the ones the Government have done with India, the US and, this week, Turkey. Services of all shapes and sizes, but particularly legal services, are a key UK economic sector and we should bear that in mind during this debate.

The second broader point is that litigation finance significantly assists with access to justice, as we have heard, discouraging large companies from anti-competitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Litigation finance funds cases of all shapes and sizes, but particularly class actions where there is a potential case against large and often global firms who unknowingly—or often knowingly —have breached the UK’s competition law.

UK competition law was crafted over many years to ensure an efficient market protecting consumers and fostering fair competition between companies, encouraging better and more effective growth. Both issues matter to UK citizens as they directly impact incomes and financial costs for families across the United Kingdom. We need one of our most successful service sectors to operate with a full focus on expansion and growth. That means more jobs, which mean more tax revenue. We need UK consumers to have routes to take on the huge might of the global companies from which they buy products and services, but that have such large market share and resources that they can more or less do what they want.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal was extended in 2015 by the coalition Government to include opt-out collective actions to enhance competition, ensure prices stay fair and that businesses do not abuse their position and keep innovating. As Ministers said at the time:

“Competition is one of the great drivers of growth”,

For many consumers, who are often on low incomes, cases in the CAT, funded by third-party litigation funding, is the only route to challenge and hold large companies to account.

Neither point is intended to imply that everything is perfect, but the PACCAR judgment and the need for legislation to remediate the situation, the CJC report that is the topic of this debate and a recent call for evidence on the opt-out regime at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, run by the Department for Business and Trade, all risk slowing down an important growth market for the UK if Government responses are not executed quickly, proportionately and with vision. Improvements can clearly be made to the oversight of the litigation funding sector, and also in the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Having said that, despite heavy lobbying for change, there is no evidence that the UK’s ranking as a destination for foreign direct investment has been affected by our vibrant competition regime. Moreover, private enforcement of the regime through the CAT seems to be good value for money, with just over £5 million in costs for the Competition Appeal Tribunal and £118 million for the Competition and Markets Authority.

The first recommendation of the CJC report is:

“Legislation should be introduced to make clear that litigation funding is…a distinct form of funding”.

It also recommends that the effect of the PACCAR Supreme Court judgment should be overturned. Although the market has, to an extent, adapted to that judgment in June 2023, the bulk of submissions to the review and elsewhere highlighted the impact on the provision of funding. Less money has been delivered to claimants, and there has been a reduction in the number of CAT cases. The report’s main ask is to get legislation in place and to overturn PACCAR. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on when that will happen, and a clear timeline. It would be good to get it done in this Session of Parliament. I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the change being retrospective, which seems fraught with complications. On the previous Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, Members raised concerns.

Other flagship recommendations in the CJC review relate to the move from self-regulation by the Association of Litigation Funders not to the Financial Conduct Authority, which some proposed, but to light-touch regulation put in place by the Lord Chancellor. The proposals are for differential regulations for the type of claimant: very little for commercial disputes, and lighter touch for consumer, representative or class actions.

The review proposes a minimum baseline set of regulatory requirements, focusing on case-specific capital adequacy, codification that litigation funders should not control the litigation process, conflicts of interest and money laundering. Additional light-touch regulation is proposed for groups and consumer claimants, to include a consumer duty, early court approval of the funding agreement and a court assessment of whether the lender’s return is reasonable. Further measures include the provision of independent legal advice for consumers before entering into funding agreements, and a prohibition on litigation funders controlling proceedings or settlement proceedings.

In reflecting on the proposals, the Government must be alive to the risk of fettering an innovative and successful industry that enables consumers to mount challenges against Goliath-sized firms. I encourage them to take a pragmatic view, driven by the market. There may be merit in applying some elements of the CJC report through regulations, but it is worth considering strengthening the current self-regulation regime, including by getting all players operating in the UK market to join the Association of Litigation Funders—it is a self-regulation body has a code of practice, but not all litigation funders are in it. I call on the industry to get everybody operating in litigation funding in the UK on board in the association.

There are proposals to use redress schemes and other forms of non-court-based resolution more regularly. I believe strongly in alternative routes to settlement, so I agree strongly with those proposals. Much more can be done to offer settlement options, including encouraging settlement rather than litigation, offering mandatory mediation in parts of the CAT process, and making mediation a clause within the process for litigation funding agreements. Avoiding costly disputes is generally a good thing. Focusing on settlement, not litigation, in the Government response would help in that regard. Mandatory mediation would also help to ensure that disputes between litigation funders and law firms are handled more clearly.

Although I acknowledge that improvements need to be made, I hope that the Minister and the Government will reflect on the potential motivations of some of those who look to impose heavy changes on opt-out. Opt-out, and its reliance on litigation finance, offers consumers a powerful opportunity for redress. The Government opt-out review, introduced earlier this year, references perceived burdens of the current regime on business, but there seems to be little evidence of our competition law putting off inward investment. The UK is seen to be a great place to invest and the same arguments that helped to build the UK competition rules stand today. If there is no fear of being brought to book, some companies will continue to rip off and abuse consumers. If they are abiding by UK competition law, they have nothing to fear.

While acknowledging that improvements can be made, we should be sceptical of those who seek to fetter consumer rights and should instead make the case for an expansion of those rights in the interests of our citizens and UK economic growth. A strong defence of consumer rights is the best way for the UK to continue to thrive, for the UK economy to grow, and for inward investors and domestic businesses to stay lean and competitive.

Whatever the Minister’s response today, I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill to address PACCAR, the primary recommendation of the CJC report, and will seek to look at practical ways to implement elements of that report while avoiding adding burdens, cost and micromanagement on to an innovative and important sector.

Lasting Power of Attorney

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered lasting power of attorney.

Thank you for that introduction, Ms Vaz; it is a pleasure to speak this afternoon under your chairship. This debate has been secured at an extremely important time, as lasting powers of attorney continue to be granted across the country. Although it is clear that the vast majority of attorneys act in the best interests of the donor, there is still considerable abuse among the very small minority who do not.

Since the campaign, in which I have been involved, to end the abuse of lasting powers of attorney began, I have received hundreds of testimonies from across the country in respect of vulnerable people who have had their funds stolen or used for purposes not in the interests of the donor. Most of the campaign’s focus has been on the abilities of the Office of the Public Guardian and the implementation of its powers, but it is important to look at the root cause of the abuses and why they are able to occur in the first place.

The abuse often begins following interactions with banks. There is no getting away from the fact that the digitisation of lasting powers of attorney processes has opened the door to abuse from a very small minority of unscrupulous individuals who have taken advantage of the ease with which an attorney can gain access to a donor’s bank accounts. The lack of legislation and duties placed on banks has resulted in an uneven implementation of safeguarding when it comes to lasting powers of attorney. That is why our campaign has called for the implementation of Government-regulated safeguarding procedures for all banks in how they deal with LPAs and the accounts of donors.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all his hard work in the House. I do not think anybody in this House is not impressed by his dedication, interests and commitment, and this debate is another example.

In Northern Ireland, the enduring power of attorney is a legal document that lets us choose someone to make decisions about our property and financial affairs if we lose mental capacity. Unlike in England and Wales, there is no equivalent of the lasting power of attorney for health and welfare in Northern Ireland. Instead, a separate process is available, through the Royal Courts of Justice, to appoint a controller if no EPA exists. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the processes both here and back home must be streamlined and accessible, while still ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect people from the abuse of power?

[Fabian Hamilton]

The hon. Member will hear later in my speech how I intend to address the issue of safeguarding, which is one of the most important parts of the process. Let us be clear that, as I said, the vast majority of lasting powers of attorney have no difficulty, problems or issues whatsoever. We need to concentrate our efforts on the small minority who cause the grief, in respect of whom people need to be safeguarded from abuse.

The Government-regulated safeguarding procedures that I mentioned, in respect of all banks in dealing with LPAs and the accounts of donors, would include a requirement to contact the donor or a GP before an LPA is activated, and the monitoring of spending prior to and after its activation.

I am afraid abuse is rife in a small minority of cases, and the recorded increases do not scratch the surface, given that most cases are undetected, not thoroughly investigated and not reported as often as they should be. The Office of the Public Guardian’s annual report made that clear last year. For example, there has been a 6.5% increase in the number of concerns about abuse raised with the OPG, but a slight decrease, from 34.5% to 33.9%, in the proportion leading to a full investigation. That change might seem small, but a lot of people are affected, and every individual concerned has a family, relatives and friends who are deeply concerned.

Two weeks ago, alongside UK Finance, I hosted a roundtable for banks that administer lasting powers of attorney. They verified that the figures cited have been seen in their work on vulnerability, with the OPG admitting that approximately 65% of potential financial abuses are being disregarded simply because the donor is deemed to have capacity. Let us be clear: someone may have capacity, but that does not mean that they cannot be coerced or financially abused.

Prisoner Release Checks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Lady would expect, a number of people are released under different regimes: some will be released at home and will, hopefully, lead productive lives; others will be back in prison; and some are recalled under licence. All that will be examined by the independent, full investigation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The fact of the matter is that some 262 prisoners were freed in error in the year to March, which is almost an epidemic. That is compared with 115 in the previous year—a increase of 128%, according to data from the Ministry of Justice. The Justice Secretary knows that I have absolute respect for him, but does he accept that this is absolutely shameful? It exemplifies the changes needed in our justice system: to restore justice, and to remind people that the penalty for crime is to lose their way of life and their rights. Those who commit crime should not simply to be placed in a holding cell to tap their fingers and wait while serving a fraction of their sentence, hoping that they are one of the growing number simply to be sent home without being rehabilitated; rather, they should be detained in the system.

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He is completely right; this is totally, totally unacceptable. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished. I think the public also want them to be rehabilitated—it has got to be punishment that works—and to be released in an appropriate fashion into the community or sent back to their country in the appropriate way. We have to ensure that the system gets that right every single time.

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

A fundamental review was attempted under the last Government, which involved closing many county courts around the country. We were told that the money released from the sale of those courts would go either into the maintenance of the rest of the estate or, more probably, into the reform programme, and so lead to digitalisation of the system. We have seen all the court closures but not the improvement in service that was supposed to result, so unfortunately here we are.

I used the Master of the Rolls figure of 23% for the amount of digitalisation that has occurred. It is key to a 21st-century system of civil justice, and that is why I am glad that the Government have looked at the future for digitalisation. I hope they will tell us that there is a clear and realistic path to achieving that, because it is where we need to go. It is ridiculous to be running a paper-based system in the 21st century. It is inefficient, it is costly and it is not providing justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee for all they have done. I understand that the recommendations in the report are specific to England and Wales, but the issues, difficulties, problems and shortcomings the hon. Gentleman has referred to are the same in Northern Ireland. Ever mindful that this is a devolved matter, is it the intention of the Chair and the Select Committee, and perhaps the Minister as well, to share the report’s recommendations? They were not all accepted, but the ones that were accepted are good. I am a great believer, as is everyone in this Great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that we are always better together, so can we share the recommendations and ensure that we can make the advances in Northern Ireland the same as in England and Wales?

[Andy Slaughter]

First, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thank him for his interest in the subject and for his question, to which my response is yes. I hope our work is useful—the Government have said it is—within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but, equally, many of the same points apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister is going to intervene on the two points we have heard from my colleagues or on the point from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure she has heard his point and will make sure that the work is shared. In any event, I undertake to ask my secretariat to ensure it is communicated.

Sentencing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will not.

New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.

New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.

Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.

All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.

The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.

The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What the right hon. Lady is putting forward is a very logical and sensible way forward, but I am conscious that young people in particular can do something wrong in life, and then return to the area that they came from. They are subject to peer pressure, and can be affected by all the things that happen in that community. Sometimes, they probably need help from outside the legal system. Has she considered that when putting forward her amendments? Do they ensure that people get a second chance, and get help where they need it—in the place where they live?

[Esther McVey]

We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist.

People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation.

Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Investing in education and work is a key part of preventing reoffending.

Frustratingly, without rehabilitation the alternative is a return to the easiest path—one of crime. We then see the revolving door of prison take another turn. Without intervention, one in two prison leavers reoffend within six months of release. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, and reoffending costs the UK an estimated £18.1 billion per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. When I heard what she was going to speak about, I wanted to intervene: first, because it is an admirable subject, and secondly, because I fully support what she is trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will come back to her along those lines. Does the hon. Lady agree that rehabilitation must take place in prisons, that part of rehabilitation is about giving the prisoner confidence that they can do something of value and worth, and that training in a new skill can do more for rehabilitation than group therapy sessions? That is the way to give an ex-inmate or prisoner the opportunity to do better, and that is what we should be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

We will absolutely consider that amendment. I should congratulate her on her appointment to her role in the Liberal Democrats. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Although the remand population is too big, we must ensure that inmates on remand receive the services that they need.

Youth justice is also a key priority for me, and this issue also affects the youth estate. On a recent visit to Wetherby young offenders institute, I observed brilliant work by teenage boys in what they call Q branch working on allotments, helping with the recycling, learning to make honey, and building a garden for the custody community. It is genuinely heartwarming and important work that these young offenders are undertaking as they reach maturity. My only disappointment came when I learned that only 5% of the children in the young offenders institute were able to access those facilities.

We must do more to make sure that every single offender who can do so safely has access to the skills and training that they need. Earlier today, I was in Birmingham to see the brilliant social enterprise Skill Mill. I met three 17-year-olds who are learning skills in construction, recycling and agriculture. Those skills mean that they will have options when they reach the age of 18 that they would not have otherwise had.

Good work is happening. A good example on the adult estate is Greene King’s academy at HMP Onley. What they call “the hideout” is a replica of a Greene King pub that gives prisoners real-world experience in hospitality, City & Guilds qualifications, and genuine job opportunities on release. Marston’s Brewery has a similar set-up in the academy at The Lock Inn at HMP Liverpool, which equips prisoners with professional catering and kitchen management skills. In fact, I must make sure that I visit The Lock Inn as a matter of urgency; I will tell my private office so. Graduates from both schemes have already gone directly into employment on release, so these initiatives really are successful. We have the data, but we need to improve it to ensure that the evidence base is there across the prison estate.

The future skills programme delivers vocational training based on employer and labour market needs and requirements. It offers a range of sector-specific skills training courses, with a guaranteed job interview on release. Building on that, and to address HMIP concerns about the intensity of the work experience, we are trialling a new Working Week project in five category C prisons, including HMP Ranby, which I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North visited recently. It is just a few miles from my constituency. Indeed, I drive past it on my commute to this place, and I will be visiting it in the coming months.

[Jim Shannon]

I was just thinking to myself that there probably are stats that show that many prisoners, with great respect—this is not meant to be judgmental—may not be able to read or write. When it comes to helping them find jobs, we have to create confidence in them, and enable them to say, “I can do that. I can learn to read and write, and can then get a job.” That is a very basic thing, but it is important. Maybe the Minister could tell us what will be done on that. That is not just about working skills; it is about life skills, social skills and being able to connect with the person next to them.

[Jake Richards]

I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.

In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations.