Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Online misogyny radicalises our boys, pressures our girls, and fuels harmful attitudes. It must be tackled in order to protect all our children. The Government are acting through tougher laws, including the Online Safety Act 2023, and our upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will protect children from harm online. Prevention is fundamental, so we are supporting schools to teach children about respect, consent and healthy relationships. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Education is in Australia right now learning about the model used over there to see how we can best learn lessons from it and apply them here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is quite clear that it is important that we all work together across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, we should take that a stage further and work together with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we both can combat online misogyny. What discussions has the Minister had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly on how we can do that work better in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that these crimes have no borders, especially online misogyny crimes. They do not take place in a silo, and it will take all of us to tackle them, including those of us in the England and Wales jurisdiction of the criminal justice system and those across our devolved counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland—and, as he states, in the Republic of Ireland too. We regularly meet with our counterparts to discuss these issues, and no stone will be left unturned when it comes to tackling misogyny.

Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Kim Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also confirmed that he understood that

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

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

Restriction of Jury Trials

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

Right to Trial by Jury

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Jim Shannon has got the answer.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman puts his question very well, as is typical of him. I agree that the British public have confidence in jury trials, and rightly so—they are a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so, whatever the exact nature of the plans we put before this House.

However, as I have said, it is not fair to ask victims to wait years for their day in court, undermining the fairness of the trial in so doing. We have to be mindful of the confidence that British people have in the outcomes of this process, which is why we asked an independent expert to look at this matter and looked at international comparisons. In Canada, for example—a common-law jurisdiction and society not so distinct from our own—where I met judges and visited courts, they use types of judge-only trial, and do not see any difference in the quality of justice that is delivered or in the outcomes. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and it is why we are considering this matter as carefully as we are.

Domestic Abuse: Children

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this debate. It is incredibly emotional, and he opened it passionately and well.

There are children in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and across our country, whose lives are being shaped, often silently, by domestic abuse. In Stafford borough, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. And across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, in a three-month period between April and June this year, nearly 500 children needed support from a local domestic abuse service. Yet, despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognising children as victims in their own right, less than a third of children whose guardian sought help were able to access support. There is legislation, but it is not doing enough or translating to change.

There are ways in which we are fortunate in Stafford. Organisations such as Staffordshire Women’s Aid and the integrated local services supporting victims and their children do extraordinary and often unseen work. Their leadership shows what it takes to make legislation real. I pay special tribute to Charlotte Almond, the exceptional chief executive officer of Staffordshire Women’s Aid. Charlotte has been unwavering in her communications with me, and yesterday she raised the hidden harm that children face through post-separation abuse where perpetrators continue their coercive control through family courts and the children themselves. She told me:

“Every service must see and hear the child as a victim in their own right.”

She is correct.

I acknowledge that the Government have made significant progress. The Ministry of Justice’s commitment to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is a landmark moment. The family courts have long been a site of acute harm for women and children. Ending the assumption that contact with both parents is automatically in a child’s best interests is not just welcome; it is saving lives. This is a huge win for victims and for the frontline organisations that have fought for it. Every one of them deserves incredible respect.

I have been told that our mission to halve violence against women and girls has made waves among those fighting to prevent violence. For the first time in decades, there is a genuine sense of hope in the sector. I was told by an activist that, for the first time in their life, change feels like it is on the horizon. But ambition must become action. All of our agencies—the police, social care, health and education—must look at risk-based assessments and whether they are taking into account the needs of children. We must ensure that every process is child-centred and that the non-abusing parent is supported, not blamed. We must hear children’s voices in every decision that is made.

A constituent of mine, whose identity I will protect, wrote to me recently. She told me of her daughter, a 10-year-old child in clear distress. The child documented her fear and wrote a secret letter begging not to go with a father who frightens her. He tore it up in front of her. Despite repeated reports, evidence and professional concerns, my constituent’s concerns were dismissed by agencies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is giving some personal stories, which are always very hard to tell because their seriousness and trauma always lies with us in our hearts. I wish the hon. Lady well as she pursues her case, and I support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for leading this debate on a difficult subject.

Sometimes debates like these are a realisation of the sad reality of life across the United Kingdom. I will try to give a quick Northern Ireland perspective. I am always shocked to read the stats and facts about the situation back home. We all have family and friends, and we can sometimes be quite sheltered from the real issues for so many families across the nation. How do we improve that?

It is always important to tell the story of the situation back home. In 2024, more than 5,000 children in Northern Ireland were referred to social services on the grounds of domestic abuse concerns. The Department of Health concludes that neglect and physical abuse remain the main reasons for registration on the child protection list. They account for 84% of all registrations—that is almost 4,400 young children.

Children who experience physical abuse are at a significantly higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and developmental delays. Data from the Police Service of Northern Ireland refers to some 30,000 domestic abuse incidents in the year to March 2025. That is a shocking figure, but many of us suspect that it is only the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more. Women’s Aid, which does a fantastic service back home in providing support for victims of domestic abuse, concludes that in 90% of domestic abuse incidents, children are in the same or an adjacent room when violence happens.

I have spoken to a social worker, and I want to tell hon. Members some of what they said. First, I thank social workers for all they do in supporting young children and taking on the incredibly heavy role that they have; I imagine that in most cases what they have to hear is not easy to listen to. The social worker stated that the mental health impact is huge, from depression to anxiety, self-harm and substance abuse. It is not always immediate: it can progress from a childhood to adolescence and into the young adult stage. In some cases, there is a reflection: children will see the role models in their life display certain behaviours, and they almost replicate them, because this is what they deem to be normal. This can be physical, verbal, emotional and, unfortunately, sexual abuse. That is not in any way to say that all children who witness abuse will turn into abusers—I am not saying that—but children who witness it are socialised into thinking that it is normal and okay, and that that is how adults behave. Many traits and challenging behaviours in young children may come from trauma that children witness over the years. This is a clear example of how violence in a household can be very confusing for them.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place, commented on the issue of parental alienation, which is a form of domestic abuse that is not often talked about but has a direct impact on the development of a child. It occurs when a child is systematically manipulated, pressured or influenced by one parent into rejecting or fearing the other parent without legitimate justification, leading to a breakdown in the relationship between the child and the parent. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the issue, and on how legislation can be strengthened to ensure that parents are not unnecessarily alienated from their children through the manipulation of another parent.

It is imperative that we protect children. This issue genuinely saddens me, as it saddens everybody in this House. We all have personal stories of those we know and have met over the years. We all want children to have the support they need. It is a sad and unfortunate reality that we will probably never be able to protect every child, although we would love to, from the devastation of this world. I know that the Minister, who is a sympathetic and compassionate lady, will answer our questions.

What can we do? We can talk about this issue and normalise the conversation. We can provide support and properly fund our social services, who go above and beyond to protect children. What they do is sometimes forgotten. It should not be. They are the backbone, and their work should not go unnoticed.

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I am grateful for being granted this debate on the safety and wellbeing of women in HMP Downview. Women prisoners are some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet very few people give much thought to the conditions in which they are being held. Today I want to draw attention to an unacceptable situation, one that not only places these women at risk of harm but that fails to recognise their basic rights. The law is being broken and it is being broken by our public institutions.

It was in 1823 that the Gaols Act was passed, mandating sex-segregated prisons. Before then, women in prison faced sexual assault and exploitation on a daily basis. Elizabeth Fry brought about important reforms that improved conditions for women, but she would be turning in her grave at where we now find ourselves over 200 years later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand in relation to it, and I thank her for raising the issue. Reports have shown that there has been a 90% increase in the number of mentally unwell women at Downview, who face extended delays in getting the support they need. The situation is the same back home at Hydebank Wood in Northern Ireland. In addition, prison staff are not trained mental health professionals, so the necessary healthcare support is not in place. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be provision to properly train prison staff to support them in supporting prisoners who are faced with long delays and deteriorating mental health?

[Rebecca Paul]

That is absolutely right and the situation at HMP Downview is a great source of concern to me, which is why I am raising it with the Minister.

However, I want to move on to another issue. Once again, we have mixed-sex prisons—inclusion trumping safety, ideology winning out over reality, the feelings of a man holding more weight than the fears of many women. HMP Downview is a women’s prison in Banstead, near the Sutton border. It includes a wing, E Wing, specifically for biological males who identify as women. E Wing local policy sets out that it is for transgender women with or without a gender recognition certificate where risk indicates they cannot be safely held in the general women’s estate.

Over the course of the last year, between five and seven males have been housed in this wing. The Minister in the other place has said that these males are vulnerable. Before I look at the facts, I have a warning: some may find the data difficult as it yields an uncomfortable truth, but one that it is incumbent upon this House not to ignore.

In 2024, of the 245 transgender males—biological males with a trans identity—in prison, 151, or 62%, were convicted of a sexual offence. This is a far, far higher rate than that for the overall male prison population, which is only around 17%. And it is not a one-off either: a similar rate can be seen for 2023—a rate of 56%. So sexual offences are massively over-represented in this specific cohort of biological males.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Separation centres were never intended for use with all terrorist offenders; they exist to separate the most pernicious radicalisers. We are achieving that aim successfully using the current separation centres’ capacity, which is kept under regular review. We are awaiting the findings of the Jonathan Hall review, and we will look closely at the judgment from yesterday’s decision to ensure that all steps are taken and that we are working with governors and prison officers on the best steps forward. We are determined to ensure that prisons are kept safe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have dealt with the spread of extreme forms of paramilitarism in our prisons, and we have learned that the influence of the most hard-line prisoners spreads easily and completely; there are those who enter prison for, perhaps, petty crime and come out the other end with hatred they never felt before. Those with extremist views should not be able to proselytise and convert people —younger inmates in particular—to extremist views. Legislative change has been mentioned. Given what we have learned in Northern Ireland would it be helpful— I always try to be helpful—for the Minister to contact the prisons Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to get their ideas? Perhaps we can be helpful to each other.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the extension of an offer to help. I will ensure that that is followed up with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. We will follow the evidence and do what works to keep our prisons safe. We will assess the risks of any further radicalisation in our separation centres and our prisons to ensure that that is not happening, and we will keep under review whether any individuals pose a danger through extending their views to the prison population or to the public. I look forward to working with counterparts in Northern Ireland to share knowledge and expertise to ensure that we get this right for everyone across the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Jake Richards]

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

Prisoner Releases in Error

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

No.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Smith]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Julian Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first recommendation of the CJC report is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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