Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on the historical injustice of the wrongful imprisonment of 37 Cammell Laird workers who, in 1984, occupied their workplace in protest at redundancies, privatisation and threats of closure. They were sacked, they lost their jobs, redundancy and pension rights, and they were sent to prison in an unprecedented assault on trade unionists. They have been fighting ever since to clear their names. It is my honour to be their voice in this place today. I note for the record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice.

I will begin by recognising the work of those who helped to bring this debate here today: the 37 themselves. They are Billy Albertina, Eddie Albertina, Francis Albertina, Jimmy Albertina, John Albertina, Jimmy Barton, Christopher Bilsborough, John Brady, Michael Byrne, Thomas Cassidy, Thomas Culshaw, John Dooley, Lol Duffy, Colin Early, Nicholas Fenian, Joe Flynn, Andrew Frazer, Barry Golding, Paul Hennessey, Edward Kenny, Paul Little, Eddie Marnell, Jimmy McCarthy, Anthony McGarry, Philip McKeown, Michael Mooney, Aiden Morley, Sam Morley, Alan Prior, Francis Roach, Stephen Smith, Christopher Thompson, Tommy Webb, Tommy Wilson, Chris Whitley, George Whittaker and John Wright.

I want to thank several other people, including the previous MP for Birkenhead, my very good friend Mick Whitley, whose brother was one of the 37. I thank him for his tireless work and campaigning both in and outside Parliament. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) who led the Westminster Hall debate on this topic back in 2023, and has continued to support the campaign. I would also like to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) who has a long history of supporting the campaign as a GMB officer. He used one of his first written parliamentary questions as an MP to secure a commitment from the then Justice Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to consider a review into the jailing of the Cammell Laird workers.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on again reading into the record the names of the 37. I hope I might put two sentiments of my own on the record. First, I pay tribute to the work of Eddie Marnell who, over many years as a member of GMB’s north-west and Irish region and central executive council, championed their cause outside this House and, through the union, inside it. I also pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues at GMB; I can attest to the many hours that have been spent in support of that cause, and I understand that the union is due to meet the campaign again in the new year.

[Kim Johnson]

I echo my hon. Friend’s support for Eddie Marnell. I look forward to the continued support of GMB going forward.

[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.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate. I declare for the record my membership of the GMB trade union. I was at that Westminster Hall debate, in which the Minister at the time said that a search had been undertaken. Given what my hon. Friend has said today about the highest levels of Government pushing this issue forward, it is very hard for us to believe that an exhaustive search was conducted at the time. During the debate, the then shadow Minister said that a Labour Government

“would release documents held by Government relating to the Cammell Laird prosecutions and carry out a review into the jailing of the striking workers.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 298WH.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to agree that very quickly indeed?

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will hear something direct in relation to that request. We need answers about who was behind the incarceration of the 37 Cammell Laird workers for contempt of court. Those men were not vandals or criminals. They were trade unionists defending their jobs, their pensions, and the future of the shipyard.

I would be grateful if, when the Minister sums up, he fully committed to the search for the truth—committed that the Government will release every relevant document, fully investigate the decisions that led to the imprisonment of those workers, and agree to meet the campaigners and the legal team to discuss what support they need to exonerate all those workers. Forty-one years on, the call remains the same: justice for the Cammell Laird 37. They deserve our recognition and gratitude for their courage in standing up and fighting back, and while this debate and whatever follows it will not undo the damage done to the lives of those men, their families and our communities, it will go a long way towards achieving justice. Jobs, not jail, must remain the guiding principle. Those men deserve our full support as they seek a formal Government apology and seek to clear their names. We will not rest until the truth is uncovered and justice is finally done.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this debate, and on her characteristically powerful speech on this important issue. I join her in praising all the campaigners, and in particular the 37 whose names she read out. I also declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB trade union, and praise that union’s work on this important issue.

As we have heard, in 1984, 37 workers were involved in an occupation at the Cammell Laird shipyard at Birkenhead in a bid to stop compulsory redundancies. Those 37 men were sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order to leave a partially built gas rig. They were imprisoned for 30 days in HMP Walton. They were subsequently dismissed from their jobs, and lost their right to redundancy and a pension. I recognise that what those 37 workers suffered was a disgrace, and although this case occurred before I was born, I recognise the issues that it raises, and the profound effect it has had on those workers and the communities that my hon. Friend represents. I am deeply sympathetic to the case and the individuals affected by it, and recognise that due to the passage of time, some of those individuals have sadly passed away.

Before I turn to the specific question posed, I would like to emphasise that this Government are committed to tackling injustice and ensuring fair and progressive rights in the workplace, so that these types of malpractice never happen again. I am about to set out the many measures that the Government are hoping to introduce through their Employment Rights Bill, but first I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is in the Chamber, and who has done so much work on this issue, both in opposition and in government.

The plan to make work pay sets out the Government’s ambitious agenda to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. That plan will bring our employment rights legislation into the 21st century. The Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. As the House will no doubt be aware, the Bill is going through ping-pong. It is the first phase of delivering our plan to get Britain moving forward, and to create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.

I stress that blacklisting is completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. Any individual or trade union who believes that they have been a victim of blacklisting can, and should, enforce their rights through an employment tribunal or the county court. The 2010 blacklisting regulations are reinforced by powers in the Data Protection Act 2018, which protect the use of personal data, including information on trade union membership and sensitive personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the use of personal data and investigates data breaches. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises, issuing enforcement notices, and imposing fines for serious breaches.

The question posed in this debate is whether there is merit in holding a public inquiry into the imprisonment of Cammell Laird workers in 1984. I recognise that this question has already been discussed in the Chamber; it is an issue of abiding parliamentary interest, and was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in February 2023, before I was a Member of this place. That debate was brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and was attended by hon. Members who have been in Parliament for some time, and who have long campaigned for justice in this area.

Public inquiries are independent investigations into matters of significant public concern. They are established by the Government and led by an independent chair. They are usually asked to establish the facts surrounding a serious issue and consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened, as well as make recommendations intended to correct deficiencies for the future. For example, an inquiry may be established to look at the cause of a major disaster, accident or other event involving significant damage or loss of life.

The Government will consider whether a matter is sufficiently serious to warrant an inquiry, and an inquiry might take a number of forms. An inquiry could be established under the Inquires Act 2005. Critically, although the Ministry of Justice owns the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries Rules 2006, Justice Ministers do not decide whether to set up an inquiry. That falls to the Department with policy or operational responsibility for the issue under consideration. Industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with are not a matter for me or the Ministry of Justice, and as such it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential merits of an inquiry.

As has been touched on, and as was set out by a predecessor in the Ministry of Justice in the Westminster Hall debate, document disclosure is a vital part of any inquiry, or any assessment of whether an inquiry is necessary. As the Government have previously disclosed, my Department has conducted extensive searches of our records within the court and prison systems, and nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers. Other Departments have likewise previously confirmed that they do not hold potentially relevant material. I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, and tomorrow morning I will go back to my Department to make sure that those searches are done again, and I will send correspondence to the relevant Departments to ensure that they do those again, too.

It is important to note, as has been accepted, that inquiries do not determine civil or criminal liability. They are not a substitute for court proceedings, and they do not determine guilt or award compensation. The appropriate route for challenging a conviction and/or sentence is by way of appeal. Once the appeal route has been exhausted, it is possible to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where a person believes that they have been wrongly convicted of a crime in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, a request can be made to the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can investigate and, where appropriate, refer cases back to court.

[Kim Johnson]

The Hillsborough campaign fought for an independent panel, and it was through an independent panel that information was brought to light that enabled the campaign to move forward. Does my hon. Friend believe that an independent panel would help the 37 campaigners to move their case forward?

[Jake Richards]

I take the suggestion seriously. As I have said on document disclosure, which I think is the first step for the campaign, and in my hon. Friend getting what she is seeking, tomorrow morning I will go to my Department and looking at this issue again. Her speech, this campaign and the Adjournment debate have meant that will happen. I can assure her that I will do that, and I take that seriously. We consider no options to be off the table.

Criminal Court Reform

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.

Right to Trial by Jury

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is right that we need to increase capacity. That is why, since we replaced her party in government, we have increased the number of sitting days by over 5,000—we have record sitting days. The fact is, however, that we must build system capacity; we need enough judges, enough prosecutors, enough court ushers, enough court translators. We need more magistrates, and we are embarking on an ambitious programme to recruit more of them. All that must happen. Unlike her party, we are investing in the system and looking to bring more courtrooms back into use, but ultimately, as Sir Brian Leveson reminds us time and again, spending our way out of trouble will not, on its own, fix the system. Former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk —one of the Conservatives’ own—said that the system would become “irrecoverable” unless we act, and, unlike the Conservatives, I am prepared to do so.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the racial disparities right across our criminal justice system. Sadly, there is nothing new about that issue, which runs from issues with policing to prosecutorial practices, and of course, our courts are not entirely free of that. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to public confidence in our justice system, and any differential treatment on the grounds of race or ethnicity is unacceptable. Regardless of which options we take forward to tackle the crisis, that principle—equality before the law—will run through them; I can assure her of that.

Prisoner Release Checks

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that this case has been shocking for her constituents and that the reports and scenes of this prisoner wandering around Chelmsford will have been incredibly disturbing; particularly so for the victims of the crime. I know that she has spoken to the Prisons Minister—I grateful that she reached out as she did—and I think that she has spoken to the governor as well.

We have suspended the officer involved pending an investigation—that must be right and proper—but I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that, having asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this case closely, we will of course take seriously her recommendations. I will ensure that the House can fully scrutinise those recommendations when they come forward.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The case of Kebatu has exposed deep failings in our prison system as a result—as we have heard—of 14 years of failure by the previous Tory Government. Those failings were made worse by chronic staff shortages.

The immediate, reckless skilled visa rule change risks forcing hundreds of experienced overseas officers out of the service overnight. At HMP Liverpool, 40% of staff could be affected. Will the Secretary of State explain how stripping our prisons of trained staff will make them safer or help prevent further failures like those seen in Mr Kebatu’s case?

Sentencing Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

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

Both amendments I have spoken in favour of today would serve to increase trust in the justice system. I encourage colleagues from all parties to consider what they can do to repair the confidence that has been damaged in the last year.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown.

There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill?

New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today.

My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies.

We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had

“been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”.

The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers.

The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it.

I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring.

Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments.

[Luke Taylor]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government.

I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving.

I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right.

I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required.

Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am here to speak about the urgent need for a statutory duty of candour and the full implementation of the Hillsborough law, and to oppose the forces that want to fight against this change.

Historically, the state has taken a defensive position to protect its own interests. From the Peterloo massacre to Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, the contaminated blood scandal and nuclear test veterans, to name but a few, the list of state cover-ups is long, exhausting and utterly shameful. So many families have been denied truth and justice because of the current system, which enables cover-ups. How and why has a system been left in place that has continually enabled the establishment to evade truth, accountability and justice for those wronged? That is a question that this place and this country should think long and hard about.

I was at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 when 97 innocent women, children and men lost their lives and countless more lives were destroyed. It was not just a tragedy; it was a betrayal—a betrayal compounded over decades by lies, cover-ups and institutional failures.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for all the amazing work he has done on this subject for such a long time. Does he agree that if the Hillsborough law is not delivered as promised, it will be a massive betrayal of not only the people of Liverpool, the families and the survivors, but the whole country?

[Ian Byrne]

I agree 100%.

The then chief constable of South Yorkshire police said after the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel in 2012:

“In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.”

By that point, 23 years after Hillsborough, the game was up. Even South Yorkshire police had to admit that there had been a cover-up of the true facts on an industrial scale.

At the end of the Hillsborough processes in 2020, 31 years had passed. A jury at the inquests had found to the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that those who died had been unlawfully killed by the gross negligence of the match commander. The police force involved had settled the cover-up cases, having publicly acknowledged that disgraceful lies had been deliberately told by senior officers to shift the blame from the police on to Liverpool supporters. Yet, disgracefully, no public servant or police officer has ever been convicted of any offence or even disciplined. In fact, one of the officers at the very heart of the cover-up, Norman Bettison, not only escaped sanction, but was rewarded. He received a knighthood—a title he disgracefully holds to this day. Truth, but no justice.

Would anybody in this place argue that it was right that those responsible for the 97 unlawful deaths of innocent people walked away without any consequences? I would wager not. However, 36 years after the Hillsborough cover-up, nothing has changed. The very establishments and vested interests responsible for this culture are once again looking to maintain the status quo and the ability to continue state cover-ups and deny justice to those wronged. This place, which has been at the heart of this culture and done so much to enable cover-ups, must acknowledge today that the game is up and act with clarity and moral courage to push back against those vested interests.

That is why we need a duty of candour, which was built into the proposed Hillsborough law of 2017. Establishing a legal duty of candour on public authorities, public servants and corporations that are responsible for public safety would set out a legal principle that they have to tell the truth. Is it not remarkable that that was necessary and remains so?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I had very positive discussions with partner countries across Europe when I visited Strasbourg, where I made a speech about how the European convention on human rights is a living instrument and therefore must keep up with the times. That is a positive conversation, and one that this Government will be continuing in the coming months.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

20. What steps she is taking to improve the quality of prison education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Ensuring that prisoners have access to education is essential for rehabilitation in order to ensure that prison produces better citizens, not better criminals. New prison education service contracts will be launched later this year, which aim to strengthen the quality of delivery and provide consistent assessment of prisoners. Last week, I held a roundtable bringing together experts to drive improvement and strengthen current education provision in young offenders institutions.

[Kim Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. However, 82% of prisons and young offenders institutions have been rated as “requires improvement” or “inadequate” by Ofsted on education, skills and work provision. Despite that, the prison education service still outsources the same poorly performing contracts to poorly performing providers, and prison educators are paid less than educators in further education settings, causing a crisis in recruitment and retention, according to the Education Committee. When we will see the greatest insourcing in a generation, and will the Minister consider insourcing prison education with proper pay, terms and conditions for prison educators?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

All options are on the table. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service introduced a head of education, skills and work into every prison to ensure that, across the estate, a senior member of prison staff is responsible for improving the quality of education provision. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Ofsted reports, but there has been an increase in the overall number of “good” ratings achieved through the inspections. This is work in progress. We need to do better, as she says, and that is what we are determined to do.

Criminal Justice

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my good friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his excellent speech and for securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it and I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. I welcome the estimate and the commitment in the spending review, but I want to focus my remarks on an area of grave concern: Ministry of Justice spending on criminal justice—and, more specifically, the adequate prevention and correction of miscarriages of justice.

What is the value of justice if innocent people are still being convicted, imprisoned and left to rot in our criminal justice system? The sad truth is that for all the billions we debate today, the Ministry is failing in one of its most fundamental duties: ensuring that innocent people are protected from wrongful conviction and supported when the system fails them. Miscarriages of justice are not theoretical; they are real and ongoing, and they destroy lives.

Andrew Malkinson was wrongfully imprisoned for 17 years for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated last year, but only after a tortuous journey through a system that was more interested in protecting itself than uncovering the truth. Peter Sullivan, wrongfully convicted of murder, spent 38 years in prison before being exonerated only last month. He is a victim of the longest miscarriage of justice involving a living prisoner in British legal history. These cases expose deep systemic flaws and happened in plain sight, but across the country individuals are experiencing criminalisation and injustice without proper recourse. Their names do not always make the headlines, but their stories are no less important. Miscarriages of justice are not rare accidents; sadly, they are now an inevitable consequence of a failing system stripped of its checks and balances.

At the heart of that system is the Criminal Cases Review Commission—a body that was designed to be the safety net, to identify where the system had gone wrong and to help innocent people find justice. Yet the CCRC is in crisis. In May, the Justice Committee published a damning indictment of its leadership and performance. It stated that the CCRC had shown

“a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes”

and that it had “deteriorated significantly” in its ability to fulfil its vital function. The Committee concluded that “root and branch reform” is required, and it is found in the clearest possible terms that it was untenable for the current chief executive Karen Kneller to remain in post. That is not political rhetoric; it is a cross-party Committee of this House carrying out its scrutiny function and reaching deeply troubling conclusions.

The CCRC’s failures come at a terrible cost, not only to those wrongfully convicted but to public confidence in the rule of law. Every year that it fails to identify miscarriages, innocent people remain behind bars, their lives on hold or, worse, permanently destroyed. But I also want to acknowledge a step in the right direction. I welcome the appointment of Dame Vera Baird KC as the interim chair of the CCRC. Dame Vera has a long and respected record of championing justice and accountability. I hope her leadership marks a turning point, and I look forward to seeing real progress, not just in leadership, but in culture, performance and independence. For that to happen, the Government must take these responsibilities seriously. Reform cannot come on the cheap. The CCRC must be properly resourced and empowered to do the job it was created to do, because until we properly fund our safeguard, miscarriages of justice will continue, the human cost will remain unbearable and the financial cost unsustainable.

I also want to touch on two areas critical to justice: legal aid and forensic sciences. Since 2010, funding has been slashed by hundreds of millions of pounds, and access to justice and representation is now a postcode lottery. We are seeing the collapse of criminal defence provision across England and Wales. There are now entire areas with no local legal aid solicitors, which disproportionately affects those from marginalised groups—those most vulnerable to miscarriages of justice.

Forensic science, which was once the gold standard, has been fragmented and degraded. A three-year inquiry into forensics set up by the APPG for miscarriages of justice recently concluded that the sector is in a “graveyard spiral”, leading to poor police investigations, increasing numbers of unsolved crimes and more wrongful convictions. Evidence shows that our system continues to fail to ensure not only the prevention of miscarriages of justice, but their speedy identification and resolution when they do occur. We support calls for a full national audit of forensic provision to access the urgent support needed to prevent further decline and to protect future investigations and trials from preventable failure.

Let me turn to prisons and the chronic underfunding that is failing staff and those in custody. At the justice unions parliamentary group yesterday, I heard at first hand about the crisis in prison education. According to Ofsted, 82% of prisons and young offender institutions are rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” for education, skills and work provision. Prison educators are paid less than their counterparts in the wider further education sector. The Education Committee warned in 2022 that poor pay, unsafe working environments and a lack of respect have driven a recruitment and retention crisis. That is unacceptable. Education is one of the most powerful tools for rehabilitation, yet we are underfunding and undervaluing the very people delivering it.

The same is true of prison maintenance. Privatisation has been a costly failure. Basic repairs remain undone, squalor is widespread and the maintenance backlog is estimated to cost nearly £2 billion. I support the POA’s “Bring it Back” campaign for insourcing prison maintenance. The promised biggest wave of insourcing in a generation must start here. In our crumbling prisons, where contracts have failed, conditions are decaying and dangerous for both staff and prisoners. I also support the POA’s campaign on retirement age. Asking officers to work until they are 68 in such a high-stress, high-risk environment is simply unsustainable. Sixty-eight is simply too late.

We are debating how to spend £18 billion in the Ministry of Justice, but money alone is not the issue; it is about priorities. If the very foundations of justice are crumbling, every other investment is undermined. The criminal justice system continues to fail innocent people. Chronic underfunding has rendered safeguards weak and ineffective. Leadership has been absent where it was most needed, and time and again the system refuses to admit it when it gets things wrong.

Miscarriages of justice are not tragic accidents. They are the inevitable consequence of a system that is under-resourced, poorly led and structurally resistant to scrutiny. Every wrongful conviction is not just a personal tragedy, but a betrayal of our legal system and the values it claims to uphold. Justice denied to one is justice denied to all.

Let us invest not just in buildings, but in truth; not just in processes, but in people. Above all, let us put real justice—not convenience or cost-cutting—at the heart of everything the Ministry of Justice does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady will be aware that those seven biological males are on E wing, which is a transgender-only facility. We will review the recent Supreme Court ruling and make sure that we are compliant in everything we do going forward. We have inherited a policy that we supported in opposition. It was a strong act by the last Government, but we will build on that following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

A recent freedom of information request showed that between January 2022 and March 2024, 52 prison staff were recommended for dismissal due to breaches of security. However, ten times that number resigned over similar breaches. What action has the Minister taken to strengthen training, oversight and accountability across the Prison Service to address this worrying trend and prevent further security failures?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Prison officers do an amazingly positive job in our prisons. Occasionally, prison officers let themselves down, and those cases are properly looked at. We continue to keep a tight look, and we learn from any issues that occur.

Victims and Courts Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to Liv’s family and to Cheryl for her powerful statement.

I want to focus on the victims of state violence and the fact that they are missing from the Bill. I want to remember the 97 victims who perished at Hillsborough, and their families who have been through so much and fought for justice for so long. I also want us to remember our Government’s commitment to those families to bring in the long-overdue legal duty of candour on public officials, otherwise known as the Hillsborough law. The Bill as it stands is a major missed opportunity to make good on that promise and finally deliver justice for the 97. We have failed to meet our own self-imposed deadline for this year’s 36th anniversary—a painful moment for Liverpool made yet more painful by broken promises and the threat that this commitment may be watered down when it is eventually brought forward.

The core of the Hillsborough law is straightforward: a statutory duty of candour on all public bodies and officials. That means that when incidents occur, those in power must proactively tell the truth, share all relevant information and co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries. There can be no more defensive PR operations, no more smear campaigns against victims, and no more families forced to battle the system for decades just to have their loved ones’ names cleared.

Without a full Hillsborough law, the cycle of cover-ups will continue. From Grenfell to the infected blood scandal, we have seen time and again that institutions act to protect themselves as a priority, leaving ordinary people to pay the price. This Bill is an unmissable opportunity for the Government to make good on their promises. I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling and bring back a Government amendment that implements a full legal duty of candour on public officials.

I also want to take the opportunity to raise the important Inquest campaign for a national oversight mechanism, which is backed by 70 organisations. It is the subject of a private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which is making its way through this place. Public and private bodies have a duty to keep us safe from harm, but every year hundreds of people die preventable state-related deaths. The lack of any mechanism for learning from past tragedies is a huge part of that. When someone dies after contact with the state, hundreds of vital recommendations are made following inquests and inquiries. That includes deaths of people in police and prison custody and in mental health settings, and following disasters at Grenfell and Hillsborough. These families need transparency, accountability and action so that changes are made to prevent future deaths in similar preventable circumstances.

Introducing a mechanism would be a watershed moment for families bereaved at the hands of the state, and it would be unforgivable for us to miss the opportunity that the Bill presents to bring forward such a mechanism. When it comes to victims of the state and public bodies, the details in the Bill are severely lacking. I hope the Minister will listen to the points I have raised and come back with some Government amendments to improve accountability and oversight mechanisms to ensure justice for all in tragedies at the hands of the state.