Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Smith]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Julian Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first recommendation of the CJC report is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lasting Power of Attorney

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered lasting power of attorney.

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Fabian Hamilton]

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

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

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

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

Prisoner Release Checks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

Sentencing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

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

[Esther McVey]

I will not.

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

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

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

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Esther McVey]

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

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

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

Work for Serving Prisoners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Jake Richards]

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

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

Sentencing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

As a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal justice system on victims, on communities and on our country as a whole. Because of that, I can say, hand on heart, that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this Bill and the transformative reforms it proposes—changes that will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful, lasting way.

I will use my time to talk specifically about probation resourcing. Before I get into the specifics, I ask Members to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but, having heard from Opposition Members, I think it is worth reiterating what last year looked like and remembering the crises we inherited from the previous Government: prisons nearing maximum capacity, the Probation Service understaffed and stretched to the brink of collapse, and a court backlog of more than 73,000 cases. And to what effect? Justice delayed is justice denied. We had a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under-resourced system that was nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals.

Difficult decisions were taken to manage those issues, regain control of our prisons and ensure that the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets. I am pleased that the Government acted quickly and decisively, but we must never find ourselves in that position again. That is why it is time to look forward and to consider how we can create a system that breaks down the cycles of reoffending, enables victims to secure swift, fair justice, and always has space to lock away society’s most violent and perverted offenders.

Those are precisely the provisions that the Bill will drive through, with measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, which are shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders, and towards a system that puts those aims at its heart. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release—a clear sign of a system not working as it should. It is not cheap, either: it is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year per prisoner. Those shocking statistics only confirm what I witnessed year in, year out when I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system, often committing the very same offences. I am old enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, that throughout my years working for the CPS, I was saddened to see those regulars later joined by their children, with entire generations of families caught up in gruelling cycles of reoffending.

The Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, subject to certain exceptions, and creates the pathway to improved community sentences with more effective measures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her wisdom. There are many measures in the Bill that the DUP supports and sees as commendable, but I would respectfully say that we have some concerns about reducing the length of custody for offenders, and our concern is sufficiently grave that we, as a party, will be supporting the reasoned amendment. I am sorry to say that, but I have to put it on record. There are many things that are good, but that is not good.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am saddened to hear that that is his position, but I am afraid it does not change my view of the Bill.

Strict and stringent measures will be in place to encourage rehabilitation. Those will be accompanied by a simplified probation requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each offender on a specific and individual level. Every offence is different, and under this system tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. That means putting in place measures best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation and deter them from future criminal activity. That is supported by evidence. The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36%, and it is 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements, so this approach works.

Let it be clear stated that in this system offenders are far from free to do whatever they like. They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions. That will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction, and towards gradual reintegration into society.

Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our Probation Service, and I am pleased that the Government have already committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited 1,000 new probation officers, with 1,300 more to come. However, as I said in previous debates when the sentencing review’s recommendations were first announced, the Government must be prepared to provide further resources to the Probation Service if that becomes necessary.

I am honoured to sit on the Justice Committee. Our inquiries have involved speaking to probation officers, and two things have been made clear. First, officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offers. Secondly, regardless of their goodwill and no matter how hard they work, probation officers cannot do their jobs effectively without proper resources. It is clear that the Probation Service has been working for many years on extremely limited resources, and we cannot let that continue under the measures in the Bill.

As a young prosecutor in the mid-2000s, under the previous Labour Government’s Respect agenda, I worked as part of the community justice initiative in Nottingham. The initiative, which was based on the Red Hook community justice centre in Brooklyn—America’s first multi-jurisdictional community court—adopted a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person’s offending, with agents such as housing officers, drug treatment workers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the sentencing process together. The approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences while enhancing public confidence in the Government. The award-winning centre is still running today, but sadly the Nottingham community justice court is not. Despite early and promising signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes.

Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in the Bill. Importantly, the review noted specifically that probation officers

“should be provided with the time, resources and autonomy necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content of probation requirements.”

Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights charity, has also outlined concerns about shortfalls of probation staff, including a deficit of around 10,000 Probation Service staff in August this year. The charity suggests that despite more Probation Service officers being appointed in the last year, the target staffing level of full-time equivalent probation officers has not yet been met.

As I said, I have seen at first hand what happens to great projects and well-evidenced initiatives if they are under-resourced. The Bill’s provisions rightly place increased responsibility on the Probation Service to deliver proper justice and to rehabilitate offenders, but it needs to be supported to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill and the Government’s announcement of increased funding for the Probation Service and the aim to recruit more probation officers, I am compelled to urge the Minister to ensure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in the Bill will ensure that our criminal justice system can once again keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish to pay tribute to the probation officers in Northern Ireland, who do an excellent job. I have met them many times, and they are magnificent. On many occasions they have to deal with young people who, due to peer pressure, find themselves influenced to do things that they normally would not do. Restorative justice is one way to try to make things better. Is there a direct strategy within Government to ensure that restorative justice is used to rehabilitate young people and give them the chance of a better life?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.

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

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I remember his debate in the main Chamber well; it was highly emotional. I am pleased to see his continued passion for justice, openness and transparency—well done.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in the Northern Ireland Assembly back home, my colleague Paul Frew MLA is currently proposing a private Member’s Bill on the duty of candour in the health sector in particular. All the issues the hon. Gentleman raised are applicable there, too. The Democratic Unionist party supports the introduction of an evidence-based statutory duty of candour within Northern Ireland’s healthcare system that can hold people to account for failings where there was a deliberate withholding of information that could have prevented harm.

The Bill is currently out for consultation. We hope that it will make a change and maybe set a precedent for the United Kingdom. The measure, rooted in transparency and accountability, is crucial for restoring trust in our health services following a series of devastating failures such as the revelations of the infected blood inquiry and the tragic hyponatraemia-related deaths. While healthcare professionals work under immense pressure, it is vital that transparency prevails—not as punishment for mistakes, but as a safeguard against deliberate misinformation or obfuscation, particularly when it leads to harm.

I believe that the duty of candour is necessary across Government Departments, while acknowledging the need for a balance to ensure that staff are not hampered from making hard decisions because they believe that they will be personally culpable for them. I can well remember that during my time in a council, when we considered going against advice given, we were warned that, in any legislative challenge, we would be personally responsible through surcharge. At times, that scare tactic would have prevented the right decisions being made. I believe that the duty of candour must be balanced with protections. I look to the Minister to ensure that that is the case UK-wide.

It is also important that, if legal cases are needed to bring openness, there are funding streams available, rather than the crowdfunding that currently seems to be needed. As always, protections against vexatious claims are also needed. Any legislation must find that delicate balance, but there must be no doubt that the right legislation is needed, and needed soon. The days of backroom dealings are done forever. The public demands and deserves better.

Local Justice Area Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

From March to June this year, the Ministry of Justice held a public consultation on proposed reform of local justice areas. The consultation sought responses on a range of proposed structural changes set to affect magistrates across England and Wales. Among those proposed changes is the merging of three magistrates benches into a single north Wales bench to serve six local authorities covering an area totalling 2,383 square miles. As the Member of Parliament for a significant portion of the north-west Wales magistrates bench area, this plan is of particular concern to me, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it today.

The local justice system in the north of Wales currently comprises three magistrates benches—north-east Wales, which serves Wrexham and Sir y Fflint; north-central Wales, representing Conwy and Sir Ddinbych; and north-west Wales, covering Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. The north-west Wales bench is based at the Caernarfon justice centre in the largest town in my constituency. Magistrates are familiar with this court, and with making the journey to that location to undertake their duties. Under Ministry of Justice plans, however, magistrates will be expected to sit at other courts outside their so-called home court between 20% and 40% of their time.

In some areas and in more urban constituencies, that may not result in significantly increased journey times and distances, but that will indubitably not be the case for individuals in the north-west of Wales. For example, if a magistrate lives in Pen Llŷn, a journey to the Caernarfon magistrates court would incur a drive of about 40 minutes. If the same magistrate is called to the next nearest court in Llandudno as part of the 20% to 40% requirement, their journey time would nearly double to an hour and 15 minutes, and if they were called to the north-eastern courts in Mold or Wrexham, the journey times would be one hour and 40 minutes or two hours, respectively—and I must say that that is on a good day.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—I hope that is somewhere near the Welsh, but with an Ulster Scots accent—for bringing forward this debate and I congratulate her on it. I spoke to her beforehand just to ascertain the direction of travel. Does she agree that magistrates must know their communities and the characteristics of where they come from, so that they can best serve justice for the victims? In other words, the better they know where they come from, the better they know the people they serve, and then they can do their job.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, this is what we talk about: the nature of justice serving those communities. It needs to know the people within those communities and to reflect their characteristics to best serve the victims, defendants, advocates and witnesses in the process by which justice is seen to be done.

The longer journeys I mentioned will inevitably create difficulties. We must remember that magistrates in this instance are volunteers. Many have other responsibilities, such as childcare and the care of elderly relatives. Some will also be in work—in other employment. It is foreseen that the changes are very likely to result in resignations, so my first question is this: has an impact assessment been made of the potential loss of experienced magistrates, the need to recruit and train new magistrates, and whether certain groups of people will be worse affected by changes in travelling time?

Cost is another factor. If an individual magistrate currently sits only in Caernarfon court, but is now directed to spend a minimum requirement of 20% at Llandudno, the annual travel expenses claim are likely to double. If they were allocated, as is theoretically possible, 40% of their time in the Mold-Yr Wyddgrug court, their annual travel claim would be likely to increase by 600%. Will the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been carried out into those substantially increased costs and the effect on value for public money?

I want to turn now to the impact on Welsh language services. While the present three local justice areas are easily grouped under the title of north Wales, it must be recognised that the communities they serve are not uniform. Indeed, the differences are most apparent in their use of Welsh. The Act of Union 1536 decreed that only English could be used in courts in Wales. That was repealed by the Welsh Courts Act 1942, the first piece of legislation to recognise the right to use the language. Of course, legislation has moved on considerably since then.

The north-west Wales bench serves the two local authority areas with the highest estimated percentage of Welsh speakers, Gwynedd and Ynys Môn, where the Welsh language is in daily use as a community, family and administrative language. The magistrates court will routinely hear defendants, victims, witnesses and advocates drawn from those communities and from the town of Caernarfon itself, where 85% of the population speak Welsh. That is just not true for the other two areas in the proposed grouping. That is made clear in the percentage of Welsh-speaking magistrates across the current local justice areas at present: 55% speak Welsh in the north-west Wales area, 16% in the central north area and only 8% in the north-east. We must remember that the purpose of local justice is exactly that: for members of a particular community to administer justice in and on behalf of that community. That means, of course, reflecting that local community.

For the north-west Wales bench, this has resulted in the Caernarfon magistrates court routinely operating in Welsh. Indeed, the Caernarfon justice centre is the home of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s Welsh language unit. There is considerable concern that the hard-fought-for offer of a bilingual service in English and Welsh for all court users will be ill-served by the UK Government’s proposals and that prospective Welsh-speaking magistrates will think twice before applying for roles, thus further reducing the number of Welsh-speaking magistrates serving communities across the whole of north Wales.

That issue was immediately raised by senior magistrates on the north-west Wales bench. They asked why a full assessment had not been made of the impact of the recommendations on the use of the language and the availability of Welsh language services. An addition was then made, I understand, to the equalities statement, outlining a potential impact on magistrates’ use of the Welsh language, phrased as “protected characteristics”. But framing an assessment in that way fails to consider the potential impacts on the rights of victims, witnesses, defendants and service users, and fails to engage with the duties enshrined in the Welsh Language Act 1993.

I am grateful to understand from the Minister, in her response to my letter on this subject, that she is “mindful of commitments” under the MOJ’s Welsh language scheme, noting that this includes responsibilities to

“assess the linguistic consequences of policies affecting services provided to the people in Wales”

and

“to undertake a Welsh Language Impact Test during consultation”.

While we wait to see how those responsibilities play out, it is clear that magistrates in the north-west of Wales do not agree that an adequate assessment of the cultural and linguistic impact of these changes has yet been undertaken. In fact, magistrates have gone so far as to tell me that they believe the MOJ has treated Wales and the people of Wales with contempt.

They are not alone in their concerns, as the Welsh Language Commissioner has made clear. After receiving initial correspondence from the MOJ, the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office told magistrates that

“the information and response provided raises more questions about how the Welsh language was considered within the consultation, especially the alleged failure to consider the implications of moving Welsh Magistrates from Caernarfon to other courts across…Wales”—

that is a translation. The commissioner’s correspondence adds that they doubt whether the impact of the proposals on court users has been identified, particularly for those currently served by the north-west Wales bench. I am aware that the Welsh Language Commissioner has contacted the Minister in relation to their concerns, and I call on the Minister today to respond in full to the commissioner as soon as is practicable.

In her response to my letter, the Minister noted that the MOJ produced a

“full translation of the consultation document considering its relevance to Welsh magistrates, court staff and court users.”

The translation of such documents by public bodies is, in all honesty, the bare minimum—it is actually a requirement under Welsh language standards—and, in all honesty, that is not the point here. It is concerning that so little attention has been given to the effects of UK Government reform on the Welsh language, especially given the Labour Welsh Government’s goal of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.

Of course, this is not new. As a result of the closure of rural courts by the previous Conservative Government since 2010, the proportion of bilingual magistrates—who of course are able to work in Welsh and English; it is always worth spelling that out—serving Gwynedd and Môn has fallen from around 80% to just over 50%; as I mentioned earlier, it is at 55%. There are serious concerns that this reform in the north of Wales will further diminish the percentage and number of magistrates who will routinely be able to offer a service in both Welsh and English, restricting what is the right in law as regards language for court users.

It begs the question of how effective justice can be if a person is denied the right to justice in the language in which they express themselves best—the way they express their emotions and feelings. Of course, it is not only that; this language is one of the two official languages of the country. In the case of Caernarfon, and very much in the case of the greater part of Gwynedd and Môn, this is the first language of the majority of people.

My third question to the Minister is: when will there be a proper assessment into the impact of the use of Welsh in court under the proposed changes? After all, let us remember that when Dic Penderyn was sentenced to death in 1831 for his part in the Merthyr rising, he was tried in English, but he said from the scaffold, “O Arglwydd, dyma gamwedd,” or, “Oh Lord, this is injustice.”

The proposals follow what has already been considerable reform in the field of local justice. Local justice areas were last reorganised as recently as 2016. As I have mentioned, numerous courts across Wales have been closed since 2010, including those in Pwllheli, Llangefni, Dolgellau and Holyhead, with the operations centralised in Caernarfon. Magistrates have endured more than a decade of continuous change. Let us remember who they are: volunteers who dedicate their time to help provide justice in their local communities—that is why they have come forward. North-west Wales magistrates tell me that they are regularly praised for their performance. They say they have not been provided with any evidence as to why the proposed changes to merge benches in the north of Wales are necessary.

I suspect the MOJ may be considering following the model of North Wales Police, which is a regional police force. However, I hasten to point out that the force area operates community policing across three sub-regions—western, central and eastern—which reflect exactly the three benches as things stand in north Wales. The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board also serves the north Wales region in its entirety, but the pressure placed on it in endeavouring to meet the needs of its widely varying communities is recognised as contributing in part to its being in and out of special measures in seven of the past 10 years.

I have a couple more questions. Will the Minister therefore commit to ensuring that the local justice reform proposals will recognise that justice is best served by magistrates rooted in their communities, and, uniquely to Wales, able to work in both national languages? Will she also commit to redoubling efforts to recruit bilingual magistrates across Wales, so that benches can be fully representative of the communities they serve?

To conclude, the Minister told me last week that one of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link, and the fact that it delivers local justice. I agree with her entirely, which is why I secured this debate. I close by urging the Minister and her Department to consider the points that I have raised on behalf of magistrates in north-west Wales, and ask her please to respond to the questions that I have posed during this speech. Diolch yn fawr iawn.