Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly.

The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies.

Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals.

By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I rise in support of new clauses 5 and 6, and Government new clause 8, and I would like to declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen.

I want to start by joining my colleagues in recognising the strength and resilience of all those who have got us to this point today, including, first and foremost, the families who fought for decades to expose the truth. Some of them have joined us in the Chamber today. They kept the flame burning for 37 long years to get us to this point. I say to them: your refusal to give up the fight for truth and justice has been a guiding light for so many in times of darkness, and today you have succeeded in making sure that other families facing the unthinkable will not have to face the same obstruction, lies, deceit and blame that you had to endure. This Bill will provide families with the certainty that state actors and those in power will be held accountable for their actions. This victory belongs to you and to the 97 who were unlawfully killed in 1989, and who we remember today.

For me, as a very proud Scouser, today is an emotional day. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice is deeply personal, born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a city that knows what institutional failure looks like, and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of it. Too many have campaigned to get us to this point, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his amazing job in championing the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament and for refusing to give into pressure when it looked like the duty of candour would be watered down.

[Nadia Whittome]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly emotional speech. I know, from the Nottingham maternity review, the harm and hurt that is caused when people with knowledge and involvement in institutional failures are allowed to dodge accountability and scrutiny. Does she agree that it is therefore vital there is no exemption from the duty of candour, including for the security services, and that campaigners, including our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), have been right to fight for so many years for a Hillsborough law that is worthy of the name and that can truly end cover-ups?

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that no one should be exempt, and I pay tribute to everybody who has got us here today.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who has campaigned over so many years in Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose relentless campaign for justice for the Hillsborough 97 has helped get us here today. I have no doubt that he will do everything he can to get us across the line. The Hillsborough Law Now legal team, Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, fought very hard to ensure that the duty of candour in the Bill was strengthened and not watered down. This would not have been possible without all their tireless endeavours, and we owe them the biggest debt of gratitude.

Today is not just about the past; it is also about preventing future cover-ups, corruption and police wrongdoing. Today we ensure that no worker, family or community is ever left to fight the state alone. I add my support to new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and supported by Inquest, which would establish a national oversight mechanism for inquests and inquiries. The amendments are vital to ensuring that recommendations do not sit gathering dust on shelves, and that we establish a body responsible and accountable for implementing them to prevent future harms.

For too long, working-class communities and the families who should have been given the dignity of being able to grieve their loved ones in peace were instead left to deal with industrial-level cover-up. The Bill is a legacy for the victims of Hillsborough. Never again will families have to endure that level of corruption and cover-up and the fundamental failure of police who blamed victims. Never again will police and state actors be allowed to go unchallenged.

Today brings hope to the families affected by other state miscarriages of justice: the victims and survivors of Grenfell; those impacted by the infected blood, Windrush and Post Office Horizon scandals; the nuclear test veterans, who are still fighting for justice; the Cammell Laird 37; the descendants of the Chinese seafarers deported from Liverpool in the 1940s, who are still fighting for truth and an apology; the survivors of the “educationally subnormal” scandal, who are yet to be given the dignity of an apology and compensation for what they were put through; or those black families who are still seeking justice for those who died as a result of police interactions—it is a bitter injustice that, just like Hillsborough, no one has ever been held to account for, and all the police involved walked free. I fully support the campaign to have the former chief superintendent of South Yorkshire police stripped of his knighthood and to have his Queen’s policing medal rescinded.

This Bill has taken far too long to get here, but the fight is not over. More work has to be done in the other place and on implementation. For the victims and so many others, the fight goes on for the justice they deserve but for far too long have been denied. No justice, no peace.

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

Back in 2015, I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It was not simply a tattoo; it was a promise. It was a promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth: I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough, but 96 did not. Today we remember the 97. That number on my wrist and the people it represents has become my compass. Every time I look at it, I think of those who never came home. I think of their families and of survivors like my dad, who was seriously injured. I think of every campaigner who has spent decades refusing to accept the lies, refusing to surrender to injustice and refusing to allow the truth to be buried. They have shaped my life far more than they will ever know. I owe them more than I could ever repay.

In the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows—every survivor of Grenfell knows it; every survivor of a public disaster knows it. It arrives uninvited in the silence of the early hours of the morning: “Why did I get to walk away when others didn’t?” For years, that question haunted me. What responsibility do you carry when your survival comes at such a terrible cost to others? What do you owe those who never got the chance to live the life you have lived?

I began to find my answers long before I entered this place. In 2009, after finishing an early shift at my printing factory, I went with my dad and my mates—people who had stood beside me at Hillsborough—to the 20th anniversary memorial service at Anfield. We stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of people. We remembered. Then came the chant that echoed around the stadium: “Justice. Justice. Justice.” Not because it was a slogan, but because it was all we had left. For two decades we had been lied to, families had been ignored, survivors had been smeared. Those who should have protected ordinary people protected themselves instead, and this House—with honourable exceptions—too often looked the other way. That is a stain on our democracy that I will never forget.

But that cry for justice could no longer be ignored. It forced this place and the country to confront the truth and, ultimately, it led to the Hillsborough independent panel. At last, the truth broke through. It confirmed what the people of Liverpool had always known: the supporters were innocent. The lies were exposed, the cover-up was exposed, and the culture of unaccountable power was exposed.

The families, the survivors and the people of Liverpool will never forgive those who deliberately vilified innocent people and orchestrated that cover-up. They will never forget what Rupert Murdoch, Kelvin MacKenzie, The Sun, Norman Bettison and South Yorkshire police did not only to the victims and survivors, but to an entire city. The wounds they inflicted went far beyond any newspaper headline; they damaged lives, reputations and trust in our institutions. That is why I will continue to campaign for Leveson part 2 and for Bettison to be stripped of his knighthood.

The new inquests in 2016 finally recognised what should have been stated from the very beginning: the victims of Hillsborough were unlawfully killed. Those words mattered because the truth matters. But truth without accountability is never enough. Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserved justice. The survivors deserved justice. We never got it for Hillsborough.

Then, Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain:

“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.

Those six words alone should be studied by every public authority in this country, every Minister, every chief constable, every permanent secretary and every senior public official, because if we do not learn those lessons, we will carry on repeating them. Few reports have ever described the British establishment with such devastating accuracy. When power is unaccountable, truth becomes negotiable, justice becomes optional and ordinary people are sacrificed.

The Hillsborough law was born from that understanding. Its purpose is simple: never again should a grieving family have to fight the state simply to discover the truth. In 2021 I was asked by my friend, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to carry the baton for a Hillsborough law in Parliament and to bring the voices of the families and survivors into Parliament, to make sure no family ever again goes through what the Hillsborough families and survivors went through. There are moments in politics that define why we are here—why we have been given this privilege. This was mine. I never saw this as my campaign. It always belonged to the families; I was simply trusted to carry their voices into this House.

Youth Justice

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the White Paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for recognising the disproportionality that still exists within the criminal justice system for our black communities. Education and diversionary activities are absolutely essential to early intervention. After the anti-Muslim hate marches and anti-Muslim rhetoric that we saw at the so-called “Unite the Kingdom” march last weekend, how will the Government ensure that this White Paper provides our schools and youth services with the tools they need to prevent young people being radicalised and exploited by hateful, violent ideologies?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that my hon. Friend has a tremendous track record in championing issues of disproportionality in this House and beyond this place, and we are grateful for all the work that she does in that area. She is absolutely right that in this White Paper we are getting up to date and gripping the online harms facing our most vulnerable young people, who, in a care context, are living without sufficient parenting and are often groomed into terrorism and vile hate. We must do something about that. There are adults who we can gather together to make a difference in the lives of those young people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member raises an important point, as I know he has repeatedly in the past, and I will raise the issue with the Home Office. I put on record that the incidents of antisemitism we saw over the weekend were wholly disgraceful, and this Government will do everything we can to stamp them out.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The Government’s relentless clampdown on the right to protest has been disgraceful. However, the High Court’s ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful is a victory for the National Council for Civil Liberties, which is now challenging policies that suppress and criminalise peaceful protesters. Does the Minister agree with me that our so-called justice system is being weaponised to intimidate and shut down legitimate protests, and that this Government’s assault on our fundamental right to protest has failed?

[Jake Richards]

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The Home Secretary has been very clear that that judgment will be appealed in the courts. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy, but those rights are balanced, and it is crucial that, where peaceful protest contravenes the law, the law stands firm.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

There is lots in this Bill that I really support, but I am ideologically opposed to restricting the right to jury trial, because it undermines the foundations of our democracy, and I have not seen any evidence to show that it will go anywhere near tackling the backlog.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today. Successive studies have shown that, on average, jury verdicts are not affected by ethnicity… including in cases with all-white juries… ‘one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.’”

Those are not my words—they are the words of the Justice Secretary, written in his seminal 2017 review. While the findings are nearly a decade old, the research by Cheryl Thomas on which those conclusions are based still holds true today.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that after enduring 14 years of Conservative government, now is the opportunity to implement the Lammy review in full?

[Kim Johnson]

I really appreciate my good friend’s intervention, and I do agree. The review was a great piece of work, and it contains some really great recommendations that will work, particularly on joint enterprise.

Only 10% of Crown court judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and just 1% are black—a figure that has remained the same for a decade. When trust in the police and the criminal justice system remains chronically low among black communities, and when we know that these systems produce disproportionate outcomes, particularly in relation to joint enterprise, why are we pouring yet more fuel on the fire? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when we all know that evidence exists but is being ignored.

All hon. Members recognise that the backlog needs to be tackled, and that victims need to be given the swift justice that they deserve, because justice delayed is justice denied. However, we need evidence-based solutions, focused on what is causing the backlog. The Institute for Government says that the proposals will save only between 1% and 2% of court time. To put that into perspective, that means that rape complainants and victims who are currently waiting for around a year for their case to be heard may see their cases brought forward by just a week.

Last month, I was pleased to visit Liverpool Crown court with the Criminal Bar Association. I had the pleasure of hearing from Judge Andrew Menary, under whose leadership Liverpool courts can now proudly boast the lowest backlog in the country. His work in bringing together prosecution and defence teams to negotiate common-sense solutions to avoid cases needlessly going to court, speeding up access to justice for victims and ensuring fair outcomes for defendants, make him a leading light in our country. I am pleased that the Government are looking to roll out these solutions.

I know that the Justice Secretary cares deeply about tackling racism in the justice system; it is on record that he has been trying to do exactly that for decades. I urge him to listen to the strength and breadth of feeling in the House today, and across the legal profession and our country, including to the voices of the 3,000 signatories of a letter to the Prime Minister. Once the right to trial by jury is removed, we may never get it back again. Justice needs juries, and today we must defend them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

While there is lots to welcome in the Bill, I fear it has been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for—they need changes that are backed by evidence and that will result in genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog, and these reforms will not reduce it.

I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape, and she is alarmed by this proposal. After a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal. She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but she opposes these plans and is outraged that her trauma and that of thousands of survivors is being used to justify what she sees as effectively a cost-cutting exercise. As learned Friends know, courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, such as six months. As my brave hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) asked, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation. We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but any steps taken should never jeopardise equality or access to justice.

[Kim Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about not jeopardising equality. Does she agree that more needs to be done to recruit more people from diverse communities, to ensure that our systems are far more diverse and represent the communities they serve?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will have heard people talk many times in this Chamber about the lack of diversity in our judicial system.

Last July, I met the Bar Council, because when a sector has issues we should talk to the workers—more often than not, they have the solutions. In my view, that has always been the Labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered—for example, that defendants who are awaiting trial should be remanded at a conveniently located prison close to the court, because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time. This wastes the court’s time and results in a new court date having to be set. We should end that privatisation and bring prisoner transportation back in-house.

We should provide greater flexibility for hearings and allow virtual courts, so that more cases are heard; permit all available judges, including those who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available; invest in more court staff and support; and list trials from Monday to Thursday, so that all short matters can be dealt with on one day—namely, Friday—minimising disruption for all other court users, such as jurors, witnesses and defendants. These are all simple changes that would significantly maximise sittings while preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. The wholesale change that we ought to be considering today is the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition Government, which led to this mess, but that has been overshadowed by the proposal to restrict jury trials.

Finally, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented. Any reforms should address this head-on, but to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. As I said earlier, this Bill was our opportunity to fully implement the Lammy review; instead, we will have a situation where there is no automatic right to appeal, when black women are 22% more likely to be convicted. To quote Ife Thompson, one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside Parliament today,

“In a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity still exist in the courtroom.”

We all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities. I cannot support this measure, and if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

I am afraid I will not.

When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When the time from reporting a rape to an actual trial is, on average, six years, bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of the next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.

Anyone who has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Not every barrister exhibits those traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that:

“A recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the Bar which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, ‘have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views with others who may be offended by them’.”

[Kim Johnson]

The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training on racism and misogyny to support people to be brought into the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend believe that those kinds of training courses can work?

[Sarah Russell]

Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?

I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

These issues have a bearing on the Department for Business and Trade, so we necessarily have to work across Government. However, in a bipartisan manner, I and my Ministers will of course be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

T3. It has been 10 years since the Jogee ruling on joint enterprise, and I would like to pay tribute to the Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association campaigners, who are in the Gallery today, for the amazing work they have done in this area. However, new Crown Prosecution Service data identifies continued racial disproportionality, with more black defendants swept into group convictions, so can the Justice Secretary confirm that meaningful law reform remains a priority and assure campaigners that this is not going to be a broken promise?

[Mr Lammy]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue, and I also pay tribute to the work of JENGbA. I have met the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has referred, I think, three cases to the Court of Appeal—to look closely at the issue. I am of course taking an interest in this issue, and I look forward to meeting campaigners in the coming months to discuss what more we may be able to do.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Member’s questions. As I set out in the statement, the issue of short-term sentences disproportionately affects female prisoners. As I recall, the average sentence that a female prisoner faces when they are sentenced to less than 12 months is around seven weeks, which is often completely absurd and can affect the prisoner and her family detrimentally and not lead to rehabilitation. Our policies on short-term sentences are a massive part of what we trying to do around that cohort. Lord Timpson is leading on the women’s justice board, which is looking at provisions for us to assist that particular cohort, who often have very particular needs.

On prison places, of course there is always market volatility. As the House knows, the Government are trying to build 1.5 million houses, and we have a commitment to invest in infrastructure. That is always complex. It can be too difficult at times, and we are trying to change that. Part of the reason for having this annual statement is to make sure that any Government are held to account for the prison places to which they have committed. We have committed to building and delivering 14,000 by 2030, and I am confident that we will do that.

On probation officers, the hon. Member is right to raise the issue of retention. We are having regular conversations with the relevant trade unions, and of course meeting probation officers on a regular basis is a very important part of my job and that of all Justice Ministers. That work is ongoing and we hope to be able to update the House on it shortly.

I understand the hon. Member’s point on education. We are undertaking a lot of work in this area, often working with the third sector. There is no point in pretending that there is no fiscal pressure in the justice system at the moment. Our twin focus is on ensuring that we solve the prison capacity crisis and deal with the court backlog, but we will make sure that we support educational provision in our prisons wherever possible.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) about there being too many people in prison who should not be there. Part of the problem with prison capacity is that our laws on joint enterprise mean that someone can be convicted of a serious crime without having made a significant contribution to that crime, often leading to multiple people serving mandatory life sentences when only one person was guilty. Locking up multiple people results in a lack of prison capacity, so does the Minister agree that we need urgent reform of joint enterprise laws so that only those who make a significant contribution to a crime can be found guilty?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend has been a champion on this issue for a long time. I am very happy to meet with her and the group to discuss the complexities of the issue, because it is very complex. I will get my office to arrange that in due course.

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?