Nepal: UK Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Thank you for what you do as Chair. I commend the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for bringing this issue forward. He set the scene incredibly well, with calmness, assuredness and knowledge; I thank him for that, and I look forward to the other contributions. This debate matters not narrowly in a diplomatic sense but in a deeply human and moral sense, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute.

In September, Nepal experienced catastrophic flooding that swept through the Kathmandu valley and surrounding regions. If we close our eyes for a second, we can almost imagine that torrent of water and the debris that came with it, which swept everything ahead of it. That reminds us of the fickleness of man and how dangerous nature can be when things go wrong. Towns were submerged, homes were destroyed and lives were lost in devastating numbers. One image that sticks in my mind is the border post: people were walking across or crossing in buses and cars, when the flood suddenly came and everything disappeared. That is how quickly things happened.

Hundreds of people perished, thousands more were displaced and entire communities were left without shelter, clean water or hope. I say those things not as statistics, but as someone who has an interest in Nepal—of course, every one of us is here because we have an interest in Nepal. I chair the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, which visited Nepal. The last delegation was led by Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, and the APPG produced a report afterwards to reflect some of our concerns.

I should have said earlier that it is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He has a quiet and sure way with him and reassures us about things that concern us. I have three requests for him, which I gave to civil servants beforehand.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is outlining the horrendous events in Nepal. Does he agree that one heartwarming thing that arose in the midst of that devastation was the number of faith groups across the UK, especially in Northern Ireland, that rallied round to raise significant amounts of money to help with the horrendous problems that many people in Nepal continue to face?

[Jim Shannon]

I was going to refer to that, but my hon. Friend beat me to it. In the middle of the devastation, heartache and despair, we can be encouraged by those who have made a significant effort to help.

Among all the devastation, what reminded me of how close people were to their final times in this world was the school where the principal, aware of the flood coming down the valley, got all the children out and higher up the mountain. They ran to get away, and those seconds saved their lives, as the flood came down and submerged the school where they had been 10 minutes earlier.

I do not want to be churlish about the genuine relief efforts that followed or the significant contributions made by those in my hon. Friend’s constituency and all our constituencies—indeed, the hon. Member for Reading Central talked about those earlier. However, the humanitarian crisis created by the floods has compounded an existing and deeply troubling pattern of religious persecution—the situation was already fragile before the waters rose.

Nepal’s Christian community, its Muslim minority and other religious groups were disproportionately affected in the aftermath. I say this to have it recorded, because my churches and those with friends or family in Nepal are getting reports about aid distribution. For example, Open Doors International and Aid to the Church in Need, two significant Christian groups involved, have both documented evidentially that aid was not always distributed equitably.

Reports gathered by the APPG indicate that minority faith communities in Nepal—who are marginalised as it is, and who already face the threat of Nepal’s anti-conversion laws, which have got stronger, more draconian and more focused—found themselves further disenfranchised in the recovery process. They were already marginalised and at the back of the queue, but they were even more disenfranchised when it came to aid. Neighbours who share a faith with local officials received assistance first, and those who did not waited. That is not speculation; witnesses confirm that they heard it from community leaders, who spoke with quiet dignity about what they had endured. That is certainly never our intention with aid, but unfortunately it happened in Nepal.

Nepal’s anti-conversion legislation effectively proscribes the sharing of faith. I am a Christian, but I believe strongly that those of other faiths should have the right to practise their faiths, just as I do. I believe that in my heart, and I expect others to believe that. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in Nepal. This has created a chilling environment even as aid workers have sought to reach the most vulnerable. Amnesty International has raised serious concerns as well—this is documented at a high level. The APPG report following Fiona Bruce’s visit as the leader of the deputation underlines that freedom of religion or belief is intrinsic to human dignity and human rights, and that a disaster must never be used as an instrument of discrimination.

My three asks of the Minister are these. First, will the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s humanitarian response to Nepal specifically include mechanisms to ensure that religious minority communities are not discriminated against in the distribution of aid? I would love to say that things have improved. When I first came to Parliament, way back in 2010, there were floods in Pakistan, where I have many friends; the floods swept right down through Pakistan, destroying much in front of them. Christian groups in Pakistan were not getting the aid that was coming through. Unfortunately, some 15 or 16 years later, we find that Christians in Nepal are not getting an equal distribution of aid.

Secondly, will the Government engage with the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief to ensure that our diplomatic presence in Kathmandu is actively monitoring FORB conditions during this crisis? That is really important, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that that is the case, but I put the question on the record. Thirdly, will the Minister kindly write to me with a timeline for that engagement?

I will conclude, because I am conscious that others want to speak. The lifeblood of any credible foreign policy is its consistency. We must stand for the same principles in Kathmandu as we proclaim in this Chamber. I always end with scripture, because it is important that we focus on what the good book tells us. Proverbs 31:8-9 talks of standing up for the oppressed and speaking for those who have no voice. Today, in this House, we have the privilege of being that spokesperson for the people in Nepal who do not have a voice in the country they live in. I commend this debate to the House, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

Iran: Threats to British Interests

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, the investigations into the RAF Fairford incident are continuing and it is right that they are able to take their course. The Prime Minister yesterday set out the situation very clearly and the Iranian involvement in it. What I would say is that I have conveyed at the highest levels—indeed, I summoned the Iranian ambassador yesterday to make it absolutely and categorically clear—our condemnation of Iran’s actions and our expectation that it ceases them immediately. We always ensure that diplomats operating in the UK are able to do so in accordance with the Vienna convention. We keep all of that always under review.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. All of us in the House recognise the Minister’s commitment to the job he does. The hostile activities of the Iranian regime, both through state actions and dangerous proxies across the middle east, pose a direct and undeniable threat to the national security of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister and I share many things, including the view that Iran’s worsening track record of human rights abuses and religious persecution, and the hanging of prisoners whose only crime is peaceful protest, needs to stop. Will he outline what robust co-ordinated steps the Government are taking, alongside our international allies, to dismantle Iran’s cyber-warfare capabilities and its funding of global terror? Can he reassure my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland that our own domestic infrastructure is fully secured against Iranian state-sponsored cyber-threats?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are fully aware of the threats that Iran poses. Our agencies do important work in identifying those threats and responding to them. We have excellent teams that work in cyber-defence. Of course, cyber-defence is a responsibility of all in society—businesses, individual citizens, Government and agencies—so we all have to play a part in that endeavour. On internal repression in Iran, including of religious minorities, I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep concerns and abhorrence at the use of the death penalty. That is exactly why we maintain diplomatic relations. We engage closely, through our ambassador and others, to raise those concerns and to hope for a better future for all people in Iran and globally.

Israel and Palestine

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Israel and Palestine.

As this is my first debate as Minister of State for the middle east, I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who spoke from the Dispatch Box on this important issue many times with great conviction and clarity. I also acknowledge the broad terms of the debate today. With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will focus on very specific issues, but I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will want to cover a number of topics. I acknowledge the strong views of Members from across this House, and indeed various views on issues relating to Israel and Palestine are reflected in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, where, I am proud to say, we have people from many different backgrounds and heritages. I am proud to represent constituents of Palestinian and Israeli backgrounds, and of a diversity of faiths and none. I draw attention to my past work on these issues in my time as an MP in this place and as a Minister, and to my declarations.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House last week, we need to start from clear principles: this is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom, self-determination, and in this case, the cause of peace, and of a secure future for all Israelis and Palestinians. It is with those principles that we approach this important issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister, who is much liked in this House. He always puts forward a balanced point of view. I have to say that at the weekend, after the decision taken by the Labour party last week, my Jewish friends and constituents, and other contacts from Israel, have been on to me in large numbers, expressing deep concern about what the Labour Government have put forward. Ever mindful that this is a time of unprecedented threats from Hamas and other terrorist entities, they say that the Government and Labour have introduced a “one-sided” trade ban. If that is the case, how can the Minister and the Government reassure my constituents about our deeply important security and intelligence sharing with Israel? There is a danger of a major diplomatic clash with Israel and the United States of America. These drastic steps will affect the lives of British people and, in particular, Jewish families.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises significant points about the important security, intelligence and defence relationship that we have with Israel. I will be clear at the outset that the measures that we have taken very much relate to our dispute about the actions of this Israeli Government, not of Israel, and certainly not of the Israeli people. With regard to his Jewish constituents, I absolutely recognise the significant concerns and fears about the threats that Jewish communities in this country and across the world face, particularly from rising antisemitism and violence. Of course, we have marked some very sombre events in recent weeks—I have heard that reflected from my Jewish constituents—and I can absolutely assure him that the Government engage closely with representatives of the Jewish communities in this country. He will also recognise that a range of views have been expressed about the Government’s announcements last week. I want to be clear that the British people, including those with ties to the region, want the suffering and violence in the region to end; a path to peace; and a two-state solution restored, in which a safe and secure Israel exists along a sovereign and viable Palestine. That is within the context of recognising the very real threats that Israel faces, including from Iran and its proxies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Ultimately, we have always been very clear, as the right hon. Member will know, that these matters must be determined in future negotiations. Fundamentally, when we talk about the actions that we are taking, we are clear about 1967 and the green line. When it comes to the actions that I will talk about, we make very clear distinctions between illegal settlements and green-line Israel.

The Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions regimes, and powers through which we will ban trade in goods from illegal Israeli settlements. We will also take action on services; we will create new designation powers to go after individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. We will ban advertising or the promotion of land and property in illegal settlements, and we will strengthen our existing global human rights sanctions regime to go after those who defy international humanitarian law, be it in Palestine or around the world. I can think of a range of other contexts for this, as sanctions Minister, and a range of other matters that Members raise in this House, including in relation to Sudan, Yemen and Myanmar. It is important that the Government have the power to act against those who defy international humanitarian law, deny access to humanitarian aid or frustrate the actions of humanitarian organisations. We are using our existing global human rights regime to sanction several extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is being incredibly generous. He has been very clear that Hamas cannot play a part in whatever future settlement there may be, and I welcome that, as I know my Jewish friends and my constituents would too, but can the Minister outline how he envisages that future, in which Hamas can play no part, to look? I would be very keen to hear his ideas.

[Stephen Doughty]

Key to that will be ensuring that Hamas put down their arms, and I think important lessons can be learned from the hon. Member’s part of the world. Imperfect as many matters are there, we have important lessons that we can share, in relation to not just Gaza but other contexts too. I have been discussing that with a range of partners over recent times.

We have a process in place. We have the 20-point plan and the 15 points; it is deeply regrettable that we have not made further progress in recent weeks and months. We will work closely with the United States and other partners to further that agenda and find a way forward, but it is absolutely clear that we need to have unity, a functioning state between Gaza and the West Bank, and a state of Palestine that can function, and to ensure that all forms of violence and extremism are rooted out.

25th Anniversary of 9/11

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Twenty-five years ago today, on a clear Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four passenger planes. Two were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. A third struck the Pentagon, and the fourth, United Airlines flight 93, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew resisted their hijackers.

In a period of less than two hours, the twin towers fell and 2,977 innocent people from more than 90 countries were murdered. Of those killed, 67 were British citizens, more than from any other country apart from the United States. Thousands more were injured, and many survivors, emergency workers and people who took part in the recovery operation have lived with the physical and psychological consequences ever since.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. It is only right on this day that we remember all those who lost their lives, in particular the 67 British citizens. As someone who represents a constituency in Northern Ireland that knows all too well the cruel, devastating scourge of terrorism and the effect on loved ones and first responders, I know that grief is indeed the price we pay for love. Does he agree that this House stands resolutely shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in the ongoing fight against global terrorism, wherever it may be in this world?

[Alan Mak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apt intervention. I absolutely agree with him: the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America, our strongest and longest-standing ally.

Conflict in Sudan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for setting the scene incredibly well. She was right to recognise the importance of the debate. Its importance is equal—I say this with great respect—to that of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which is currently being debated in the main Chamber. The impact of the conflict in Sudan is even greater, given the number of people affected. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak specifically about the conflict’s devastating impact on freedom of religion and belief.

I always try to start with a verse of scripture, because for me that underlines the moral weight of what we are discussing. Proverbs 31:8 instructs us:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

In this Chamber, we are a voice for the voiceless. That is precisely what this debate asks us to do: to be the spokespeople in this Chamber for the Sudanese people.

Let us be clear from the outset: the situation in Sudan is not simply a conventional campaign of religious persecution. Since fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces erupted in April 2023, state authority has fragmented catastrophically. Armed groups operate with widespread immunity. Religious minorities have become acutely and disproportionately vulnerable in the chaos that has followed. It would be misleading, of course, to characterise the situation solely as one side persecuting Christians because both armed factions have attacked places of worship and terrorised communities of faith. The stats illustrate the scale of that. The Open Doors 2026 world watch list ranked Sudan fourth in the world for Christian persecution, with a score of 92 out of 100—the highest ever recorded for Sudan. That tells you what is happening in Sudan.

I am going to speak about the persecution. Approximately 2.2 million Christians, around 4.3% of the population, remain in Sudan. Some 23 Christians have been killed for faith-related reasons and around 100 churches or Christian buildings have been attacked or closed. In December 2024, RSF soldiers attacked a Church of Christ congregation during a Christmas prayer service in Al-Hasaheisa, forcing out some 177 worshippers, assaulting at least 14 people and looting the building. That is not collateral damage; it is targeted religious terror—that is how it must be categorised.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I must reiterate that freedom of religion or belief must mean freedom for all. Muslims, too, are victims. In September 2025, an RSF attack on a mosque in El Fasher during dawn prayers killed more than 80 worshippers. Mosques have been damaged and destroyed alongside churches. Baha’is, Shi’a Muslims and other small communities are equally exposed when institutional protection collapses entirely. That is what has happened in Sudan: protection is not there for anybody at this moment in time.

What makes its deterioration particularly grievous is that at one time Sudan was moving in a better direction. Following Omar al-Bashir’s removal in 2019, Sudan abolished the death penalty for apostasy and began to remove sharia law as a constitutional basis for legislation. Those were genuinely encouraging developments; in 2019 things did seem brighter, if only for a short time. The October 2021 coup halted that progress and the 2023 civil war has now swept away most of what remained of institutional religious protection—it has all gone away in some seven years.

We must encourage the Secretary of State to address three specific points. First, what representations is His Majesty’s Government making to ensure that FORB protections are explicitly incorporated into any future constitutional settlement in Sudan, preserving and building on the reforms of 2019 to 2020?

Secondly, what steps are being taken to document the attacks on religious infrastructure by both armed factions and raise them with international partners? I congratulate the Minister on her performance in the Chamber today; it was certainly strong, and I look forward to a similar response to the questions that we put forward here. I would like there to be accountability for those who have carried out terrible atrocities in Sudan. Is a process taking place to ensure that those who carried out heinous crimes—the hon. Lady for Gillingham and Rainham referred to a nine-year-old child being abused and raped by these monsters—have accountability?

Thirdly, will the Government commit to ensuring that humanitarian assistance reaches displaced religious minority communities who face discrimination even in accessing aid? There is no fairness in how aid is processed.

In conclusion, any influence that we have can and must be used to help the people for whom persecution has become a fact of life. That is a fact that we can never accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The overall funding to Chad for the humanitarian response had fallen to 27%. That meant that in the refugee camps we visited, food was being rationed—it may have been every other week or every other month that they were missing food parcels—and the refugees were extremely worried about what would happen.

We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of £146 million of new funds for frontline aid workers to support Sudan, but the Government’s aid cuts have diminished our ability to respond to humanitarian crises and honour our international commitments. I remind the Minister that the 0.7% aid budget was a commitment that the House legislated for, and that we continue to wait for a timetable to return to 0.7%.

Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. I recently met representatives of the independent UN fact-finding mission for Sudan. Their latest report was just released and makes for tough reading, concluding that external support is sustaining and expanding the military capabilities of the SAF and RSF, particularly their drone capability; that transnational networks are supplying the RSF with

“weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel”;

and that the SAF is using foreign-supplied drones that harm civilians.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) referred to the influence of Russia. The Wagner Group in particular seems to be in the background, training and exploiting the reserves, gold and minerals in Sudan at the same time as being involved in atrocities against women, children and all the people in Sudan. Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to looking for culprits, Russia is at the top of the list?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing this important debate, and for her recent visit to Egypt, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee). As they will have both heard, the conflict in Sudan is one of the most devastating and—I would argue—defining conflicts of the 21st century.

For the millions of people living through it, the word “crisis” just does not do it justice. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham and others in the Chamber today for continuing to shine a light on this conflict, and I ask them to please pass on my sincere gratitude to all their constituents who have been in touch on this issue. It is incredibly inspiring to see their solidarity with people who they may never meet. I also want to pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and Baroness Chapman of Darlington, and the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), for their tireless efforts to strengthen the world’s response.

My message today is simple: the UK stands with the people of Sudan, and this Government, the Foreign Secretary and I stand with them too. We have heard powerfully from all the speakers today about the current situation, not least from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will not rehearse all the statistics, but I would like to add two of my own: Sudan is now the deadliest place on earth to be a health worker, and it is the second deadliest place on earth to be an aid worker. There can be no justification, in any circumstance, for attacks on those who simply seek to serve humanity. When faced with suffering on this scale, our compassion is not enough, and our outrage is not enough. I know that Members want to hear about our action, so let me go through the points that have been raised in turn.

This year, the UK has committed £146 million in support for Sudan, which will reach over 1.8 million people. Having been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), I am pleased to confirm that, as part of that work, we have launched a £20 million programme to support survivors of sexual and gender-based violence with medical and psychological care. To ensure that those closest to the crisis can deliver aid to the hardest-to-reach areas, we have more than doubled our support to local Sudanese responders, including to local emergency response rooms. I am proud of what we are doing on aid, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out, aid alone is not enough, which is why she sought reassurance on arms sales.

[Jim Shannon]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response; I never doubted for a second that it would be positive. My contribution was specifically about Christians, who do not seem to be seeing any of that aid coming through. What can be done to ensure the equal dispersal of aid to all ethnic groups, particularly the Christians who just do not seem to be getting it?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I apologise for not addressing that in my remarks. Equality of access to aid is obviously incredibly important. I would be delighted to write to the hon. Member after the debate on particular questions about freedom of religion or belief and equitable distribution to all communities in Sudan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asked for reassurance about our position on arms sales, and I want to confirm that the UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. Every single licence is assessed for risk of diversion and kept under careful and continual review. We have so far reviewed over 3,000 export licences for destinations where there have been allegations of diversion or transit to Sudan, and we have thus far found no evidence of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. We will keep that under continual review.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East also asked whether the UK supports expanding the arms embargo to the whole of Sudan. I am pleased to confirm that, as she will know, negotiations on the renewal of the UN embargo are currently under way, but the UK is full-throatedly supporting efforts to extend its scope. Last year, we worked closely with the United States and other UN SC members to secure its renewal, and the UK has a long-standing bilateral arms embargo in place for the whole of Sudan, sitting alongside a separate UN arms embargo on Darfur.

Several hon. Members asked about the diplomatic priority of the conflict in Sudan in the new Foreign Office team. I want to be absolutely clear that it is central to everything that the Foreign Secretary and I are trying to achieve. We are committed to doing all we can to secure a ceasefire. In April, the UK hosted the international Sudan conference in Berlin to marshal the efforts of the 55 states present to press for a ceasefire. As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, we have secured eight resolutions and 12 press statements, galvanising global action towards a ceasefire. We regularly speak to members of the Quad, and others with influence, to co-ordinate efforts towards the US-led push for a truce to protect civilians and ensure that critical humanitarian aid can reach those who are most in need. Our special representative to Sudan also regularly engages with the warring parties, advocating for a ceasefire and a civilian-led transition.

I have been asked today about the nature of the conversations that we have been having. I am pleased to confirm that I was recently in Addis Ababa and was able to raise the situation directly with the chairperson of the African Union. I can also confirm that FCDO Ministers including the Foreign Secretary have raised the situation in Sudan with Emirati counterparts and other members of the Quad.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), spoke powerfully today, particularly about the need for atrocity prevention in El Obeid. I want to reflect for a moment on what we are doing there. The UK has lobbied at every level, including with the warring parties and those with influence over them. As the UN Security Council penholder, we have been advocating to highlight the risk of atrocities and push for an immediate ceasefire. On 3 July, we convened an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in El Obeid, calling for urgent de-escalation, humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians. On 6 July, a UK-penned resolution urging the warring parties to agree an immediate ceasefire and comply with international law was adopted by consensus. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also asked whether we would be extending the fact-finding mission’s mandate; I can confirm that we are indeed pushing for that, as we led for the mandate in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about our engagement with the Sudanese civil society and diaspora. Officials engage frequently with members of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, including through a quarterly diaspora engagement forum that co-ordinates engagement across the UK and, indeed, in the region.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East asked about the recent reports of chemical weapons use. As hon. Members might imagine, we are hugely concerned. All such allegations must be taken seriously and investigated, because any use of chemical weapons, by anyone anywhere, is utterly unacceptable. As Members will know, Sudan is a state party to the chemical weapons convention, and we expect all those in Sudan to abide by its obligations.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) brought to our attention the issue of Colombian mercenaries. I want to confirm that we have already sanctioned Colombian mercenaries suspected of involvement in atrocities in Sudan, as well as those suspected of supplying weapons to the RSF. We have recently targeted actors suspected of using the gold trade to bankroll Sudan’s brutal war from beyond its borders.

I will say a little more about gold, because it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). In July, we announced a fresh package of sanctions against illicit gold networks. That followed four rounds of designations targeting senior SAF and RSF commanders and those suspected of being complicit in the heinous atrocities committed during the assault on El Fasher last year.

I have been asked to reflect on future sanctions. As Members will appreciate, we generally do not do that, because it limits their effectiveness, but I can assure them that their representations have been heard.

We have also focused on this situation through our work in August on the UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention and justice in Sudan, with a two-day conference in London at which we discussed innovative civilian-protection measures and heard directly from the independent fact-finding mission ahead of its vital report, which we have just been discussing.

I am pleased to confirm that at the UN General Assembly later this month, the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to make the case that Sudan cannot, must not and will not be forgotten. As we all know so well, every single day that this conflict continues, the human cost grows, but so too does the need for dialogue, justice and peace.

[Kirsty McNeill]

I am delighted to confirm that I will be very proactive, yes. I am so moved by and appreciative of all Members who have come to speak today, their constituents and the work of the APPGs in which they are all involved. I happily confirm that, both to those Members with specialist knowledge and to those raising issues on behalf of constituents.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for being generous in taking our questions. The most evil, wicked and bestial crimes have been carried out, including the murder or rape of women from ages eight to 80, the destruction of property and the infliction of injuries, with people’s arms and limbs being taken off. The House would be keen to understand whether there has been any attempt whatever to collate all those atrocities and the people involved in them, so that they can be held accountable.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I reject the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. United Kingdom Ministers have been clear in every international forum in which we are present about our position on this matter, and I am pleased to underscore and repeat it today: the Falkland Islands are British.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her strong and resolute answers. Following the deeply concerning decision surrounding the Chagos Islands, the good people of the Falkland Islands need more than just warm words; they need iron-clad guarantees. The Minister has stood firm at the Dispatch Box today and declared unequivocally that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable. President Trump must stand by the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure that the international community is under absolutely no illusions that we beat the Argentinians when it mattered, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can and will do that again if necessary, and that those islands will remain British for as long as their people wish?

[Kirsty McNeill]

There can be no doubt in any capital in the world and, most importantly, in the Falkland Islands that the Falkland Islands are British. Their right to self-determination is absolute, and the UK Government stand as a guarantor of exactly that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. It is very important that people trust the information they receive. She will have noticed the alert that was sent out across England, which was a sign of how seriously this Government take their commitment to communicate with the public responsibly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. There are 67 wars across the world—countries in conflict with other countries. What can she do to ensure that sworn enemies come together to tackle climate change, which is the real enemy of every country in this world?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman: climate change is a common enemy, and we have to face it across this House, across this country and across the world. We are committed to working with everybody who is taking climate action seriously.

Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for giving me the chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), my cousin from across the sea—or across the shuck, as we would say back in Northern Ireland—for highlighting this issue. It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate.

When I first came here, there was a time in our friendship, Sir Roger—I have learned to value your advice on many things—when you would have said, “What’s that boy saying?” You never said it to offend, of course, but you might have asked yourself that question.

When we talk about diversity, inclusion and breaking down barriers to social mobility in the country, we rightly talk about race, gender, background and socioeconomic status. But, as the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton said, there is a silent, pervasive form of prejudice that remains entirely socially acceptable in corporate boardrooms, academic institutions and possibly the very corridors of power in this place. I am talking about accentism. I have a very clear accent. I think it is normal, but when I came over here I realised that I might be the only one with it. People’s intelligence, competence and worth can be judged entirely on how they sound.

I will give an example. I was saying to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that when I asked a question in the Adjournment debate one night, the Minister said, “That’s a great question. I’ll come back to you with the answer.” I just thought that was what she meant; I never had any reason to think otherwise. She happened to meet one of my colleagues, David Simpson, who used to be an MP, and she said, “Jim asked me a question in the Chamber the other night. I have no idea what he said, so I just told him that I would come back to him with a written response.” That illustrates that, in the early days, it took a wee bit longer for people to understand.

I stand here today as a proud son of County Down, and I speak with the voice of my constituency. All my constituents can understand it—I suppose that is the important thing. It is a voice heavily shaped by our rich Ulster Scots linguistic heritage. To me and the people of Strangford and Northern Ireland, it is the language of our hearts, our history and our homes. It is a dialect full of warmth, character and deep-rooted culture. But if we step outside Northern Ireland, that same voice is too often treated as a barrier. I speak not for me but for some of my constituents who have come here for university or to seek employment.

Studies into accent bias, such as the landmark “Speaking Up” report by the Sutton Trust, have shown that regional working-class accents, including those from Northern Ireland, are consistently ranked lower for prestige and perceived professional capability than received pronunciation or standard BBC English. I remember, at school as a young boy, my earliest words were in Ulster Scots. Education was different at that time. Whenever a child said something wrong, the teacher, Mr Whisker, would say, “That’s not proper English.” I would say, “Those are the words my granny and mum use.” In those days, a child would get a clip round the ear for that. That is not a criticism; it did not do me any harm. Teaching was done in a different way.

Young people from my constituency, who travel across the water and study at top universities or apply for corporate roles in London, are routinely told—sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally—that they need to soften their accents if they want to be taken seriously. That it is a damning indictment of our social mobility framework. Why should a young person have to trade away their identity just to get a foot on the career ladder?

We speak pretty fast in Northern Ireland, and the speed of words may be part of the problem. Kate Hoey, the former Member for Vauxhall, said, “Jim Shannon gets more words to the minute than any other MP.” In all honesty, she told me that and I took it as a compliment, which I am sure it was. The fact is we do talk a wee bit fast. The House will know I am not a man who is shy about speaking up for his constituents. I mention Strangford almost as many times as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentions Harlow.

I make it a point of principle to participate in as many debates, urgent questions and statements as I humanly can. I have lost count of the number of times the brilliant and hard-working staff from Hansard have had to chase me—down the corridor sometimes—saying, “Mr Shannon, have you got a wee minute, please? Could you send me your notes? Who was that person you mentioned? Where was that place? Will you spell it, please?” They do it for urgent clarification of names, towns or specific phrases I have used in a debate. I say that with the utmost fondness and kindness to the Hansard staff, who are incredibly understanding. I respect all of them for doing a heroic job. I know they go the extra mile for me to ensure that everything is correct.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This is a serious issue—we must ensure that people are not disadvantaged for any type of accent—but does my hon. Friend agree there is sometimes a humorous side, as we saw this week in the European Parliament? A Sinn Féin MEP complained that they were not allowed to speak in Irish. When the chair reminded him that they could, the MEP replied that he was not prepared, so he would speak in English instead. It can be humorous—even if slightly embarrassing at times.

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend and colleague.

The Hansard staff do a heroic job. They are always happy to write down the names of my local farmers, community groups and townlands such as Ballywalter—which we know as Whitkirk—or Kircubbin. Last week, I got a wee message, “Could you spell your sons’ names, please?” That perfectly illustrates the point of this debate, and the centre and core of what the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton had to say. If a Member of Parliament, with more than two decades of public service, still faces hurdles to be understood because of his or her regional tongue, what hope does a 21-year-old graduate from a working-class Ulster-Scots background have when trying to navigate an interview panel of elites? How challenging and hard could that be?

One of my favourite stories dates back to when my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I served on the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is again about the accent being hard to understand. I had an American guest for a meal in the dining room there. The lady, an English professor at a prestigious American university, was really interested in Ulster Scots words and accent. We were served by a young boy I knew and had probably grown up with in Ballywalter—or Whitkirk. I chatted with him and asked after his mum and dad, as you do in small talk. That lovely, intelligent lady from Philadelphia leaned over to Naomi, my private secretary, and said, “That’s wonderful. Jim is speaking in Ulster Scots.” Naomi replied, “No, he always speaks like that.” Again, that is an illustration of this. It was not really Ulster Scots; it was the way I talked. That is how we speak, and although that story may be humorous in a way, it highlights the issues that an accent can bring.

I will come back to the seriousness of this issue and why it is important. When someone constantly has to repeat themselves, is met with blank stares—nobody is ignoring them; sometimes they just do not follow—or is asked, “Could you maybe say that again?” or “Speak more clearly, if possible,” it chips away at their confidence. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) both referred to that; it is a key issue. That breeds a form of imposter syndrome that tells our young people that they do not belong in high-flying professions, and it pushes them out of the rooms where decisions are made, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South said. Linguistic diversity is the ultimate sign of a rich and vibrant democracy. We should be celebrating the fact that the United Kingdom is a tapestry of different voices, dialects and accents. That enriches us all, and there are some people in this room—I am thinking of one in particular, and he knows who he is—whose accents I love listening to. I just love it when some other MPs, such as the Plaid Cymru Members, speak. Their voices and their words are almost like singing in the way they come over. There are also the Scotsmen. Angus MacNeil—I can use his name, because he is no longer a Member—was speaking one day in the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said to me, “Do you understand him?” I said, “I understand every word he said,” and he said, “I suppose you probably would.” Angus speaks fast; his words were at a rate similar to my own. That example underlines the issue.

What do we need? We need employers, universities and civil services to actively train interviewers to look past the phonetic wrapper and focus purely on the substance of what has been said. I will conclude with an Ulster Scots phrase for Members to work out—it will be a challenge, of course. Keep ‘er lit!

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I love the hon. Gentleman’s accent. It portrays the person he is: the history, the culture, and the locality he comes from. Every word that the hon. Gentleman speaks is a word from his constituency and from his people. I like him as a person, by the way, but I just wanted to say that I love his accent as well.

[Ian Lavery]

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. My youngest son Liam speaks with a much harsher dialect than me, but he speaks five times faster than the hon. Gentleman. Imagine the problems that causes us when we travel abroad, or even to Yorkshire, for example. People do not have a clue what he is saying, but he is university educated and is absolutely fantastic at the work he does.

My accent is pitmatic: it is from the pits, from the coalmines. Every little village and town had their own pit—some had more than one—and we all spoke different. In one town, we had our own language and dialect—our own speak. I am proud of that. I am really proud of the fact that, when I left school with very few qualifications, I went to work seven miles under the North sea with some of the finest and brightest people I will ever meet: the miners. Not many of them ever got the opportunity to go to university, but you should hear the way they speak. When I look at some of the videos and recordings of the miners in my patch from days gone by, I can hardly understand what they are saying, but it is so rich in heritage, it is absolutely wondrous, to be honest.

I have an anecdote before I get on to the serious part. Two or three years ago, in my patch in Ashington, a group of asylum seekers met a shadow Minister to discuss the situations they faced in towns like mine, and one of the big barriers was the dialect. They said that it was okay and that they could understand what we were saying; the big problem was that their children were going to school and picking up the dialect. When the children were coming in from school and speaking to their mams in their best Ashington dialect, their parents did not have a clue what they were talking about. That is how serious it is, and that is the situation in areas like mine up and down the country.

This place easily intimidates people. Fortunately, I am not the type of person to be intimidated, but I have faced my fair share of hostility in this place. It is as if someone with an accent like mine should not be in here. If anything underlines the lack of correlation between competence and dialect, we only need to look at the dialect of our Eton-educated former Prime Ministers. They did not do much good for my community.

My constituents are proud of where they come from. There are subtle, and often not so subtle, patterns of speech that mark communities that are only miles apart. Many people are forced to choose between maintaining an accent they are proud of or ditching it to try to move on in life. That is just not right. It is the last form of acceptable discrimination, and it is absolutely ridiculous in this country. Where you speak, how you speak and where you are from affects how people identify you, and people discriminate against you because of what you say.

Despite some recent setbacks, this country has done fantastically well to rid itself of many prejudices, but the one that remains is the one we suffer from the most: the prejudice around social markers and local dialects, and the ideas about who we are and where we should be in life because of how we speak. Before saying anything more than a sentence, people from Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Choppington and Stakeford are judged. The people in my patch refuse to compromise their dialects, but they are judged every single day for them, and we have to tackle that.

The north-east accent often acts as a proxy for social class and colours the opportunities for far too many people—mainly younger people. In some areas a local accent can be positively viewed, but they are too few in number. Trade unions, community organising, social work, youth work, skilled trades, emergency services, sport and local journalism stand apart, but even in those fields the class prejudices that follow a person’s accent can limit their opportunities.

Nobody should be forced to ditch their accent for a job or to reach their potential. As I said, when I worked as a pitman I met some of the finest thinkers in the world, and I listened to their political analysis while sitting in the pitch black seven miles under the North sea. They are the people who built our nation, but they continue to be looked down on by those who see themselves as their betters. Accents are a proud part of the heritage and legacy of those who went before us—the giants of our movement we stand with, who should never be forgotten. That well-known red Clydesider John Maclean said:

“Rise with your class, not out of it.”

That should include maintaining your accent.

A whole number of issues have been raised in some of the briefings that have been sent out. It is worth mentioning some statistics at this point: 69% of people change their accent to fit in; 27% change the way they speak for a job interview; 24% change the way they speak at work; 26% have been teased in the workplace for their accent; 11% believe they missed out on a job because of their class and social status; 10% felt discriminated against when applying for a job because of their background and social class; and 61% of people would support making discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic background illegal.

Professor Rob Drummond says that people across England have expressed positive views about regional accents, but still rated northern-accented speakers as less intelligent and less “correct” when hearing identical speech. Earlier research found that lower-working-class speakers were judged to be 14% less intelligent, 4% less friendly and 5% less trustworthy than upper-middle-class speakers. There is huge prejudice about people with accents like mine.

I have often been asked if I am Dutch, Ukrainian or Russian. I am asked what part of Europe I am from. Am I German? Am I Irish? Although that is quite humorous, there is a serious point to it. I will never, ever change my accent, and when I say that I will never change it, I am speaking me best Queen’s English. I have really slowed down my speech for this contribution today, because I am not far behind the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of how fast I speak. When a group of people from where I live get together and we have had a few pints, believe me: there’s nobody can understand what is being said. Nobody has a clue.

I think my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, said before that in this place you can be speaking to people about very serious issues, issues that your constituents face, and you can tell that the person who you are talking to is not taking it in. They just say, “Yes. Yep. That’s right.” Indeed, you can say some of the most extraordinary things and they will just say, “Yes, yes, yes, yes,” because they are not taking it in, and that is because of your accent. That is a serious issue.

I am a proud member of the Northumbrian Language Society, which since 1983 has championed the diverse dialects of Northumberland, north-west Durham and Tyneside. The man who did most to mark this organisation was the Ashington-dialect poet, Fred Reed. He has written some fantastic poetry, which I urge people to read. They will not understand it, but it is worth reading and it highlights and accentuates a point. He was very proud of the mining community that he came from, and he knew that working people created the wealth of the nation. In his own words, “Dividends were won by the pitmen’s blood.” I think that is a fantastic saying from a fantastic individual. The legacy of the miners and workers who left us our rich dialects should be the eradication of that final, acceptable prejudice. That way, we can break down the barriers for brilliant working-class kids who, given the opportunity, can change the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Member reminds me that my aunt sadly lost her partner a few months ago. He was three days off his 90th birthday, and he was a true Cornishman. He had lived in Cornwall his entire life—in a very small area of Cornwall, in fact. He was incredibly well known, and I had the privilege of being able to love spending time with him. Listening to the way that he spoke and the stories that he used to tell was just beautiful, but the phrases that he used to use are unfortunately dying out. They will be lost over time, so we have to take advantage of modern technology to record some of these things, so that they are not lost and we should also continue to encourage them in our schools through spoken histories. I thank the hon. Member for raising that.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady referred to her aunt’s father, who was almost 90 years old, and that reminds me of my own dad, who is dead and gone. He was a very proud Donegal man, and one of the wee poems or verses that he taught me when I was small was this:

“Where ye fa?

Donegal.

How’s your purties?

Great or small.

How do you eat them?

Skins an a.”

Those wee verses will be lost forever if they are not retained and written down. It is important to retain some of those wee stories from days past, as well as the fact that potatoes was what it was all about. Potatoes in Donegal—that is what they lived on, for their dinner and their tea. That is just a wee step back in time.

[Marie Goldman]

There are so many lovely stories to tell about this subject, and that is why this has been such a lovely debate. We genuinely should be continuing to encourage the retention of regional phrases, stories and poems, and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for bringing us that poem.

In conclusion, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe very strongly in a society with strong social mobility. Our regional accents, backgrounds and experiences should never hold us back from social mobility; people’s opportunities should definitely never ever be limited by their accent. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton for bringing us this debate.

NATO Summit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which had vast portions of positivity and good news within it. While the £70 billion Ukraine package and the 5% spending target by 2035 sound impressive, our constituents want to know just how well those declarations translate into safety on the ground. Russia continues its brutal onslaught. As was rightly pointed out at the summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression are incredibly worrying, too. How will the Government ensure that all NATO countries are fully playing their part and that every pound coming from our taxpayers will be matched by fellow NATO countries and their taxpayers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.

Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I reassure the House that the Foreign Office keeps contingency plans for the region under close review. We were incredibly grateful for the co-operation of our partners and, indeed, the support of British nationals themselves in the very speedy departure from the Gulf during the outbreak of this conflict. It is clear that should there be any difficulty—although there is no suggestion that there is—in the region for travelling British nationals, we will need the co-operation of British nationals and those in the region. It is very unlikely, and it is quite a distant prospect, that a further evacuation will be required.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. His words are always well chosen, and I think he encapsulates the energy and opinion of this House. The IRGC continues to wage war against humanity, executing prisoners, ruthlessly spying on dissidents on British soil and orchestrating severe targeted persecution against religious minorities, including our Christian brothers and sisters in Iran. The IRGC also continues to block the strait of Hormuz and attack peaceful neighbours. What discussions have the Minister and the Government had with our NATO and USA allies to collectively respond and show Iran that its continued state-sponsored terrorism will no longer be tolerated?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the threats that the IRGC has posed in the region and internationally. As I said in an earlier answer, domestic measures are being introduced in relation to state threats, and I imagine that we will have more to say about the employment of that new tool shortly. On the international position, we have made a series of interventions, both internationally and in the region, to try to reduce Iran’s malign role in the region. We have spent most of this urgent question discussing what is happening in the strait of Hormuz, but there are clearly Iranian militias right across the region continuing to threaten civilians, stability and the security of the region.