Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We all have a duty to try to use language in a way that does not incite hatred and division. Of course, there are very strong feelings around this area in particular, because the crimes are so heinous and there was so much that was wrong about the way that the state, in all its forms, responded to those crimes. I understand the anger, but I urge all hon. Members to be careful with their language. We have all seen, in real life, the impact of what we are seeing online. That can be very scary and very dangerous, so I urge everybody to treat this issue with the respect it deserves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her encouraging answers, and put on record that no one doubts her commitment to delivering justice. We thank her for it. What urgent steps will the Government take to action the recommendations on the mandatory ethnicity recording of offenders and the deportation of all foreign national perpetrators, and those relating to the full institutional failures by the police, the social services, local authorities and the NHS? Will she follow through with a national public inquiry, with subpoena powers?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. On ethnicity, we will legislate in the police reform Bill, which will come before Parliament shortly, to ensure ethnicity is recorded in the way that I think everyone in this House wants. He will know that we have increased very substantially the number of foreign national offenders being deported. Since the previous Government, there has been a big increase. That is quite right, and we will continue with that. We will continue to do the work across all our Departments to make sure that people are acting in the way that they should. There is a whole raft of work under way across multiple Departments to make sure of that.

Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for telling us the stories of this issue with passion, belief and conviction, as he so often does. He brought them to our attention capably today. It is always a pleasure to come along and support him. Indeed, I always do because he brings issues to the Chamber that are pertinent to me, which I will explain in relation to my constituency. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—she is back as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), is also here again. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”, only with a different subject. We wake up at 6 o’clock when the alarm goes off, but I digress.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, as that is my duty here on behalf of my constituents in Strangford. When we talk about the rise of retail crime and abuse against customer-facing workers in Northern Ireland, we are talking not about isolated incidents but about a systematic, daily onslaught against our high streets. I am sad to say it is at that level in my constituency.

The latest figures from Retailers Against Crime expose the terrifying scale of the problem. Shoplifting in Northern Ireland has surged by a staggering 33% year on year. Let us be clear: this is not petty theft, but highly organised, aggressive criminal behaviour that has caused retail financial losses to skyrocket by some 45%. Far worse, it is not just a financial toll; there is a devastating human cost, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said. That cost is the people who never thought that they would ever be threatened at their place of work, who probably know everybody in the community and who suddenly find themselves being threatened, traumatised and unable to cope. They never envisaged that as part of their job.

The retail union USDAW has revealed the deeply alarming statistic that 18% of shop workers in Northern Ireland suffered a direct physical attack over a single 12-month period. That means that nearly one in five workers went to do their job and ended up being physically assaulted. That is why this debate is incredibly helpful for our constituents and for those who want change and protection for shop workers.

My son Jamie, my eldest boy, was the manager of Shop 4 U on Newtownards High Street. He left that job some five years ago, but at that time he was the manager. It is a very big shop with an off-licence at the end of it. One night, as so often happened at that time, a guy came in, probably high on drugs. He had a knife in his hand and threatened Jamie. Jamie was right to step back and say, “Look, you go ahead.” Why would someone throw themselves in front of somebody with a knife who is perhaps unable to understand their pleas, or who is aggressive enough to ignore those pleas, whatever they may be? Why would someone do that if it is only for a bottle of whisky or gin or a dozen beers? A life is worth more than that. On that occasion they had CCTV in the shop, so they were able to chase up the individual and see where they came from.

My point is that the traumatic effect that that has on people will differ from person to person, character to character and personality to personality. Jamie was probably able to get over it because he is a strong young man. Somebody else who is threatened by a person with a knife may not be able to get over it. What about the ladies in the shop, for instance? What if Jamie had not been there as the manager of the store? I often think of how they would have responded. We look back at those things.

Furthermore, some 60% of all violent incidents, threats and verbal tirades directed at local shop staff are triggered by confronting shoplifters. Physical abuse is one thing, but verbal abuse can be almost as terrifying because of the aggression behind it. Our retail staff have been forced on to the frontline. It used to be a case of, “Let’s go and do me six hours, four hours, eight hours in the shop and fill the shelves, speak to the people, look after the customers.” But now they get threatened and, all of a sudden, their job is not the job they signed up for. They face everything from physical intimidation to the terrifying threat of ammonia and acid attacks. Bleach is used against them as well.

Our official Police Service of Northern Ireland data shows an overall decrease of 2.3% in standard police logs, which tells us a dangerous truth. It is one that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned and he is right. That is also my perception in my constituency. It proves there is a massive under-reporting gap: every verbal or physical attack on a shop worker might not be reported to the police. If it is reported to the police, is there a reaction? That is what the hon. Gentleman referred to. Shop workers endure verbal abuse and threats every single day, but they do not report it because they feel the system has abandoned them. If they feel the system has abandoned them, the system has to change.

We cannot look at the numbers and do nothing. Our independent shops have been forced to absorb a massive crime tax just to pay for security. I am the oldest person in this Chamber—I suspect by far—and I can remember going to the shops down the road and there was not a security man in the shop. There was never any need to have a security person in the shop. There was no need for CCTV cameras. A police van was always available, by the way. It was never too far away. It was always on the beat, but things have changed.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the work that organisations such as the Harrogate business improvement district do to support the town centre in Harrogate. It has recently hired a business crime officer who has 30 years’ experience in policing. Having organisations that connect the shops, the town centre, the police and the council, keeping everyone looped together, adds real value to our communities. It helps keep them safe and reduces crime and threats to shop workers.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always brings something pertinent to the debate, so I thank him for that. That is a positive step forward and probably one of the things that the Minister will respond to when she concludes.

We are talking about absorbing a crime tax just to pay for security when staff live in fear. They need to know that abuse is not acceptable, whether they are paid a minimum wage or £1 million a year. A job should never determine the abuse that someone has. We need to make that point very clear today.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and to the contributions of the two shadow spokespersons and the speakers who follow me.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens. The security of our nation is the basis upon which our democracy, our prosperity and our way of life depend. If a state cannot guarantee the safety of its people, every other promise it makes rings hollow. Today we debate a relatively short Bill, but its brevity should not be mistaken for unimportance; it is essential to meeting the sacred responsibility of protecting this country and our fellow citizens.

This Bill comes at a time when the need is great. We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which many of our old assumptions no longer hold. The boundaries between war and peace have blurred; the tactics employed by hostile actors have become more sophisticated, more deniable and more insidious; and the threat has grown in scale. The director general of MI5 recently revealed that the number of individuals under investigation for state threat activity had grown by more than a third in the space of a year. After many years in which the Security Service was focused overwhelmingly on counter-terror work, it must now also respond to threats from foreign powers that are greater in number than at any time in a generation.

The nature of the threats posed by foreign powers will be known by many in this House. We have seen physical threats against individuals and property; we have witnessed attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and we have experienced cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. The source of these state threats has come predominantly, although not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. I should emphasise that the threats from each present differently, both in scope and nature, and I will take each in turn.

The Russian state, as we know all too well, is responsible for deaths on British soil. What began with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was repeated in Salisbury with the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. The Russian state’s wanton disregard for human life was evident in the risks it was happy to pose to British citizens, which led, tragically, to the death of Dawn Sturgess—an innocent British woman killed by the Russian state.

Putin’s Russia has also sought to influence our politics, as demonstrated by the guilty plea by Nathan Gill, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, who accepted bribes for peddling pro-Kremlin narratives. Russia is also a prolific and malevolent force in cyber-space. A recent targeting of politicians, journalists, universities and civil society organisations was disrupted by our security services in December 2025, resulting in the sanctioning of eight Russian cyber-intelligence officers.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach to China is nuanced: we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. There are areas on which we will engage with China, including the economy, the environment and, indeed, on certain shared security challenges. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. However, national security is the first duty of Government, and China does pose real national security threats to the United Kingdom. We have seen cyber-attacks, foreign interference, and espionage targeted at our institutions. Just days ago, MI5 and fellow Five Eyes members issued an alert warning of the threat posed by China’s military intelligence services. The Hong Kong police force has also encouraged transnational repression on our soil against a community to whom we are proud to have given sanctuary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister for bringing forward this legislation. I am concerned on behalf of my constituents of Chinese descent who still have families living in Hong Kong and China and who are still subject to persecution and human rights issues. The pursuit of my constituents by Chinese officials in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland has to be stopped. What can the Minister do through this legislation to stop the pursuit by Chinese officials—clandestinely, or in whatever way it may be—of my constituents, who are law-abiding citizens, just because they happen to be Chinese and just because happen to have relatives in Hong Kong?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Both the National Security Act 2023 and the measures we are debating today will ensure that we have the strongest suite of measures available to us to take action against those who come after people on our soil, including dissidents from other regimes and people to whom we have given sanctuary. Transnational repression will be caught by the measures in this Bill.

High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House and for all of us who are here being able to speak on it as a result.

I rise to highlight a pressing crisis directly impacting local businesses and community safety across my Strangford constituency. At the epicentre of the constituency sits Newtownards, where we have Conway Square, a booming hub of local commerce. Yet Newtownards, my biggest town, currently faces the difficulty faced throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: illicit activity impacting the fabric of the retail sector. Our high streets are the economic and social lifeblood of these distinct communities. Whether we are talking about the local traders in Newtownards, the independent businesses in Comber or the traditional shopkeepers at the Thursday market in Ballynahinch, they are forced to act as an unassisted frontline defence against an escalating wave of retail theft, criminal damage and antisocial behaviour.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see a clampdown? We welcome the Government moving on this issue, but if there is a systematic clampdown, we have to try to ensure that the Government also recognise that we must not have even more derelict, empty properties on the high street. We need a combination of a crackdown on illegal shops, but also efforts to redevelop the high street for legal shops so that shoppers can enjoy them.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always brings wise words and wisdom to the debate.

We frequently hear the narrative that Northern Ireland maintains historic lows in overall crime, but sweeping generalities do not always give the true picture. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, but to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, which I always do in these debates—it is really important that we put it on the record—the PSNI has said that the overall crime statistics are down by some 2.3%, but in relation to my constituency of Strangford and to Newtownards in particular, Ards and North Down has bucked the positive trend. It stands out as one of the few policing districts to experience an increase in recorded crime. Unfortunately that is happening, and I am here to reflect that in this debate.

Long-term trend data reveals that, across the region, theft offences have risen substantially, driven heavily by a massive surge in shoplifting. It has reached the point at which shoplifting has hit some of the highest levels ever recorded in Northern Ireland’s recent history. In town centres such as Newtownards, the commercial crime wave is felt acutely. CrimeRate shows that the overall crime rate in Newtownards sits at 44 crimes per 1,000 people, which is 24% higher than the Northern Ireland average. That, again, gives an indication of the issues.

Crucially for our high streets, theft and shoplifting make up more than 20% of all recorded crime in Newtownards. That goes along with high-density antisocial behaviour and criminal damage, which intimidate shoppers and drive down footfall. As National Trading Standards warns, organised crime groups are actively infiltrating high street retail spaces. On our own doorsteps, shopkeepers face organised, brazen shoplifting rings that steal to order, often funding low-level drug networks or residual paramilitary elements that still attempt to exert control over our towns. I have been in touch with PSNI Superintendent Johnston McDowell to ensure that the police have a proactive partnership with the shopkeepers, the chamber of trade and individuals to reduce that. To expect a small business owner already battling inflation and footfall migration to absorb the financial losses of relentless retail theft is completely unsustainable.

The Minister is always responsive, and I know that she travels to Northern Ireland regularly. I also know that she likes going there—I am very biased, but doesn’t everybody? I believe we must work with the Northern Ireland Executive to allocate dedicated and visible town centre foot patrols that cover the full span of the constituency with a heavy permanent presence in Newtownards and stretching down as far as Ballynahinch so as to deter organised theft rings.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman for a change. I have been raising similar issues with Middlesbrough council about Middlesbrough town centre. I am assured that the council is bringing forward a plan soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be closer collaboration between local government and central Government to address these issues?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to add that issue to the debate. I know that when the Minister responds he will encourage us all in that regard.

I am not going to take all the time that has been awarded to me in this debate, but I will say that we must be more aggressive with the legal outcomes for repeat offenders. Shoplifting cannot be dismissed as a victimless, low-level offence; it is not that for those who are trying to make their living.

What discussions has the Minister had with the Justice Minister back home to ensure that we can do better? We need cross-district town centre shared networks with enhanced capital funding to expand localised business crime partnerships—that is the police, chamber of trade and local shopkeepers. We also need to share live digital intelligence and instantly flag active shoplifting groups. After Newtownards earlier this week, will those groups be in Bangor, Comber, Ballynahinch or Saintfield the following week? Our constituents and retailers across Strangford and this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve town centres that feel welcoming, prosperous and secure. Let us deliver the legislative teeth that we need to ensure our shopkeepers and businesses are able to trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate.

For far too many people and in far too many places, the high street has become a visible sign of where the British state has lost control. People suspect that the cash-only takeaways, barber’s shops and vape shops that they see springing up on their high streets are symptomatic of a deeper rot. As the hon. Gentleman and many others set out, in many cases they are right. All too often, such high street shops are linked to organised crime, including through the sale of illicit or counterfeit goods, money laundering, immigration crime and people smuggling.

Last month, the BBC uncovered that people smugglers are directing migrants to pay for illegal channel crossings using a network of high street businesses, including mobile phone shops. In 2024 alone, trading standards seized more than 1 million illegal vapes and 19 million illegal cigarettes. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, the National Crime Agency estimates that £1 billion of crime-linked cash is laundered through high street businesses every year. It is clearly difficult to produce reliable estimates of things such as money laundering, so the real figure may be even higher. The money laundered by such businesses often fuels human trafficking or the drug trade.

The problem is only getting worse. According to one survey, 99% of trading standards professionals have seen an increase in the number of cash-intensive businesses opening on their local high streets in recent years. Cash-intensive businesses often provide the best fronts for money laundering and the trade in illicit and counterfeit goods.

While businesses that do the right thing are struggling with ever more regulation and ever higher taxes, businesses with links to organised crime are thriving. To combat the rise in illicit activity on our high streets, we must understand the criminal networks that sustain that activity and the link in many cases between those networks and immigration.

Let us imagine, for example, an organised crime gang involved in the drugs trade. When that gang sells drugs to people, payment will most often be made in cash, because cash is harder to trace. However, if that business wants to bring its cash into the normal financial system, it will need to launder the money so as not to provoke suspicion. If a person suddenly deposits tens of thousands of pounds with no clear income source, a bank will register that as suspicious, but not so if the money is deposited by a high street business.

The gang might therefore set up a high street shop—something cash-intensive and with low overhead costs, such as a vape shop. The shop records its transactions but adds to those real purchases a series of phantom cash sales used to disguise the illicit cash raised by the sale of drugs. The deposit appears legitimate and can be backed up with paperwork. Once that cash is deposited, it can be paid out as profit to those involved in running the organisation, for example as a fake invoice to an overseas supplier that is paid out to a shell company registered abroad.

The criminal gangs involved in the drug trade operate across borders both financially and physically. They will have overseas suppliers who provide them with the drugs that they sell. These supply networks are often sustained by links between people of the same nationality, ethnicity or even extended family. Often, these drug gangs are also involved in other kinds of cross-border smuggling—of counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco and, indeed, people.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this to the attention of the Chamber today. One of the issues, which I know the Minister is well across, is the cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border. A better working relationship with the Garda Síochána is critical. Can the Minister confirm that the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police forces here on the mainland can work together to better defeat paramilitary and organised crime groups?

[Katie Lam]

The hon. Member is right that the common travel area presents particular challenges. It is crucial to maintain the sorts of relationships he is talking about in a way that keeps the public safe in Northern Ireland and the whole country.

If high street shops are already laundering money on behalf of these gangs, they might also sell the things that the gang illegally imports. They might serve as points of contact for people who are looking to smuggle people into Britain illegally, as was highlighted by the BBC’s most recent investigation.

Those shops might also help criminal gangs to bring people into this country by sponsoring their visas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has previously highlighted, many cash-intensive high street businesses sponsor an absurd number of visas. On paper, these people work for a legitimate high street business, but in practice many of them will be using that apparently legitimate employment as cover for their work as part of a criminal gang. Others may be working, or forced to work, for dramatically less than the minimum wage, which both exploits them and distorts the labour market. That happens everywhere in the country. In the stunning town of Tenterden in my constituency, Indian restaurant Badsha was recently found to have been employing illegal migrants for a fourth time, racking up £120,000 in fines and not paying a single penny.

I would appreciate it if the Minister set out how the Home Office thinks about and plans to tackle the links between illicit activity on the high street, organised crime, immigration and people smuggling, and how the Department’s plans for tackling illicit activity on the high street take account of those links. Does it keep a record of how many businesses raided under high street organised crime operations were also registered visa sponsors? Does it keep a record of the visa status and visa type of those employed by these businesses?

What proportion of high street businesses employing people illegally are repeat offenders like the one in my constituency? Will the Minister share what proportion of Operation Machinize targets in cases related to counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco or vapes, money laundering or the sale of drugs were also involved in illegal working, visa fraud or organised immigration crime and people smuggling?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this excellent debate. The message I take away from it is, “You’ve done some stuff that we think is good, but we need to do a lot more.” This issue is undoubtedly one that we will all be judged on when we next stand before the electorate.

As I have in Croydon, every Member in this place will have experience of a high street that they grew up going to that they know will never again be as they remember it. We also know that we need to tell a new story for our high streets. As shops have closed for all the reasons that Members have outlined, illicit activity has stepped in. It is important to start with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft): we have not only to tackle the criminality, but to establish what we want to do with our town centres. As has been mentioned, there is some innovation across the country where town centres are growing, which is great.

The Government are very aware that we have to understand and appreciate the fact that the town centre of the future will be different, and we need to change laws and do what we can to encourage a new high street. A wider high street strategy is being pulled together at the moment; every Government Department that could possibly be relevant is coming together and asking, “What more can we do to ensure that our high streets can thrive for the businesses we want to see on them, rather than this illicit activity?”

The activity itself has been very well described, and my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) showed leadership in painting us a very good picture of the problems we see nationally. We know there is this increase in shops—I see it on my high street, as everybody does—but people are not in them, so how are they making money? What is going on in that space?

As other Members will have done, I recently joined the raid of a shop in London, which was a big joint operation between trading standards, local authorities and the police, and some of the things I learned were very uncomfortable to hear. For example, an increasing number of builders are being employed by these shop owners to build hidden cupboards so that people can hide their illegal activities. Also, there were lots of cameras in the back of the shop, but they were not there to protect the shop itself; they were to keep an eye on the people working there—these are nasty criminal gangs that want to ensure that the people they employ are not stealing from them. The young lad who was in the shop when we did the raid had nothing to do with the ownership; apparently, the owner was away. As has been mentioned, understanding who owns some of these properties is a complicated and difficult challenge. I am very well aware of the problem that we are trying to fix.

I am very grateful to the many Members who pointed to the important work that the Government have introduced—I do not want to diminish it by saying that we of course need to go further. We have the new high street organised crime unit in the Home Office, as well as the £30 million that has been allocated, in part, to fund the National Crime Agency, and £6 million of which is going to trading standards. Many Members have talked about how the ability of trading standards to respond to today’s challenges has been completely wiped out, so that money will help them. Some £1.5 million has been allocated to immigration enforcement, just to add to all the other work that is happening in immigration—my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked about the connections, which of course exist; just today, there was an immigration raid in my constituency—and £1.5 million is going from that pot to HMRC so that it can do some work on this issue. Members talked about Companies House; there is more work to be done there, for sure.

The closure powers—the closure notice extension to 72 hours and, looking ahead, the longer, 12-month closure—are important, and I am glad that Members have welcomed them. I was very interested in what Members had to say about the Netherlands. As Policing Minister, I do not really get to go on trips, but maybe there should be a Netherlands trip with the campaign group to see what is being done there. In the absence of such a trip, I will certainly read more about how that regime is working. That is a really important point: we should look to other countries and understand what they are doing.

We are open to all of the many good suggestions that Members have made. There is a ministerial group chaired by the new Security Minister; she would have been here, but she could not be, as she is introducing legislation today. I am also on the committee, along with all the Departments that Members would expect to be there. There was a push for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to do work in this space; I know that it is looking at that, and I will certainly talk to it more about that. I will say that all the suggestions that have been made today were mentioned in that first ministerial meeting; we talked about all the same issues. I know we need to go further and faster and we need to push forward, but there was nothing surprising in the suggestions that hon. Members made; these are very sensible things that we are looking at and want to take forward.

There will be big national pushes under Operation Machinize. For obvious reasons, I cannot say when they will be, but Operation Machinize has worked effectively; when all the agencies work together, there is a much more effective outcome. All Members made useful suggestions: more support for trading standards; looking at licensing and more powers for local authorities; data sharing—that is an important suggestion, which I certainly agree with—a place for direct reporting into trading standards, which is an interesting one; and more powers to tackle landlords as well as the organised crime.

The Home Office’s policing reform programme will, I hope, help us tackle these kinds of issues much more effectively. Setting up a national police service could tackle this co-ordinated, serious organised crime in a much better way. At the moment, every time there is a new issue, we have to set up a structure to tackle it at national level. The national police service will be there to do that. It will bring together the National Crime Agency, counter-terrorism and all the other national organisations. We know that some of this money laundering is driving terrorism, for example, and at the moment two different bodies are tackling that. Bringing it all together and having co-ordination at the centre will help.

At the bedrock of our policing policy, we have the commitment to 13,000 more neighbourhood officers on our streets. That will make a significant difference in how people feel about their high streets and in the criminal activity that we are able to tackle. When people mention, for example, kids hanging about outside the illegal shops and doing things that we think they should not be doing, the police will be there to tackle those problems.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen again for securing this debate, and I thank all Members—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

Oh, yes—I forgot to talk about Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope the Minister does not mind my asking, but would she take the time, as she often does on her visits to Northern Ireland, to engage with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long? There are lots of things we can do better together, and we can share ideas, so will the Minister take that opportunity on one of her many visits to Northern Ireland?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, of course. Forgive me; I should have responded to that earlier. The hon. Member also made the point about illicit trade across all our nations, and we need to work together to tackle that as well.

I will end just as I began, by saying that we will be judged on this when we next stand before—

West Midlands Police: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for West Midlands Police.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As elected representatives we hold various obligations to our constituents, but I suspect that few are of greater importance than giving residents the right to feel safe in the places they call home. For that reason, we must do all we can to support the brave men and women of our police forces.

This debate is more than about visible patrols that reassure parents taking their children to school, or swift responses to reports of crime. It is also about giving people the confidence that when something goes wrong, the police will deliver justice in a fair and proportionate way. In the west midlands, that basic promise has been undermined by years of budget cuts and neglect.

Across the communities of Birmingham Perry Barr, where knife crime, antisocial behaviour and gang violence are constant concerns, residents are not seeing enough police on their streets. The figures tell a grim story: compared with 2010, West Midlands police has 520 fewer officers on duty, on top of the 520 fewer police community support officers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. He is making a reputation for himself in the House when it comes to such subjects, and I wish him well. Does he agree that to have an effective police force, there must be community buy-in? To have community buy-in, people need to see the police on the streets each and every day, which obviously requires more finance. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to ensure that the Government make community funding the cornerstone of policing once again? Does he agree that community policing is the way forward?

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member is far more learned than I am in this House, and he makes a very important point. Community policing is of course the optimum type of policing, and I will deal with that point later in my speech.

To make matters worse, when we adjust for population growth, as we must, our area actually needs 640 additional officers compared with 2010. In real terms, then, we are not just 520 police officers and 520 police community support officers down; we are down by about 1,700 officers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

First and foremost, this Government’s commitment is evidenced by our landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls over a decade. We have a deliberate 10-year vision to do that, because it is a wider societal change that we are seeking to enact. We are delivering that transformational change to keep more victims safe. Work has begun, but there is much more to be done. As my hon. Friend will know, these matters are discussed regularly in the House, and I will keep Members updated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her responses. In the last two to three weeks in Northern Ireland, we have had two horrific murders of women and their unborn children; in both cases, heavy sentences have been handed out. Given her responses to the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), it is important that we have similar rules in Northern Ireland for those who carry out vile, horrific killings of their partners and their unborn children. There must be a sentence that equals that.

Improving the UK Visa System

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for highlighting this vital thread in the UK fabric.

I will speak about fishing visas. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for bringing the issue forward and for his suggestions. We had a very good meeting with the Minister six weeks ago—we thank him for that—and I hope he can tell today us what progress has been made since then.

I make no apologies for again speaking on behalf of the proud, resilient fishing communities of Strangford and, indeed, the whole of the Northern Ireland coastal fishing industry. For generations, men and boys from places such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel have braved the cold, dark waters of the Irish sea to put food on our tables. They are the lifeblood of our coastal villages, yet right at this moment their very livelihoods are anchored by a clunky, inflexible UK visa system that simply does not fit the realities of life at sea.

Let me be absolutely clear about the foundation of this issue. We must never conflate the safe, legal, hard-working migrant fishermen on which our industry depends with those who illegally enter the UK. Our fishermen are the first to say that they rely on skilled, legitimate foreign workers to keep the nets down and their boats moving. What are the Government offering them? That is the big question. The skilled worker visas are proving entirely unavailable to the fishing industry post 2026. We are looking at a potential loss of up to 70% of crew members on Northern Ireland vessels, which would tie up almost 100% of the local nephrops fleet within just a few years.

Just to explain the issues back home, I recently heard that a local agency put out a trawl for job vacancies, advertising across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Europe. However, out of hundreds of expressions of interest, only a handful were suitable, and a mere five people actually took up the jobs. Why? Fishing is cold, wet and demanding work. Our local boys and men do not begrudge paying a fair wage, but the workforce is simply not there on our shores. The foreign crews are seafaring folk with invaluable skills and form a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture.

Just recently, we have seen restrictions such as the visa changes by the Isle of Man authorities, which directly impact Northern Ireland trawlers that have legitimately purchased permits to fish and negotiate neighbouring waters. Our fleet has been squeezed from every angle. We are not asking for a lowering of standards, and nor are we asking to open the floodgates; we are asking for common sense and flexibility. The industry has long called for an immigration route modelled on the seasonal worker visa or a dedicated, bespoke visa for fishing crews. That would protect British businesses while allowing long-term recruitment drives to bear fruit.

Let us be clear: food security is national security. If we want to maintain an affordable, sustainable food supply, we must give our fishermen the tools and crew they need to get out to sea. I have repeatedly pressed the Home Office and the relevant Minister for a solution. With the greatest respect, I say to the Minister today that perhaps now is the time to give us that. The Government need to step up and listen to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. We need flexibility, and we need a bespoke visa. Give our fishing communities the helping hand they deserve, and let our boats get back to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is right that we keep the public informed of what we are doing. In the current atmosphere, there is a lot of misinformation. When we tell the public that there are deportations and removals going on, we are simply not believed—that is the climate that we currently operate in. There have been some representations of illegal migrants boarding planes, but the faces are always blurred and it is not possible to tell who they are, because I completely agree that it is important to respect an individual’s dignity.

I will move on to compliance and enforcement. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, the Government have introduced tough new laws to clamp down on illegal working. That means that, for the first time, right-to-work checks and associated sanctions for non-compliance will be extended to cover businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers in sectors such as construction, food delivery, beauty salons, courier services and warehousing. Those changes will restrict rogue employers’ ability to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities for those permitted to work in the UK. They will provide parity across industries and set a level playing field for businesses to uphold their responsibilities.

A number of Members mentioned work visa sponsorship. The ability to sponsor overseas workers is a privilege and not a right. That privilege must be earned by meeting strict criteria, which establish that the organisation is lawfully trading or operating in the UK, is suitable and trustworthy, and is capable of offering roles that meet the requirements of the immigration rules that we set. That comes with specific duties and responsibilities through which sponsors are held to account. The Home Office will not hesitate to act when organisations fail to meet those standards, and licences can and will be refused or revoked as a result. Arrests involving illegal workers are up by around 60%. I take the point that there are defunct employers on the list, and I will ensure that officials look at that.

I will turn briefly, because I am strapped for time, to data. I agree with the sentiment that the Home Office data falls down in many places; that has been a problem for decades. We are looking to combat it, and I will ensure that we work hard to improve it. I always find it unacceptable when I have to respond to written questions and we do not have the data.

I will talk briefly about the religious routes, which were also mentioned. The immigration system maintains two dedicated immigration routes for religious workers—the religious worker and minister of religion routes—in acknowledgment of the valuable contribution that faith groups, including religious institutions from overseas, make to our society. All visas are kept under regular review to ensure that they are operating as intended and remain properly controlled, and there are no plans at this point to close those routes.

Turning to student and graduate visas, the Government continue to welcome and value the contribution made to our society, economy and higher education institutions by those overseas students who choose to come to our great country. We have the best universities in the world, and we want the best minds in every country to aspire to complete their education here. International students can apply for a student visa if they demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the route, including a sufficient level of English, the ability to support themselves financially throughout their stay and an offer from an approved institution, and pay the immigration health surcharge. We are looking at basic compliance, and there will be more information on that coming—tomorrow, I believe. I was with a number of university stakeholders on Monday. It is important that we work together with the universities to ensure compliance, but that we still attract the greatest minds to the country. Abuse on that route is down by 30% since we came into government, but last year we still saw 11,000 individuals enter on the student route and go on to claim asylum.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for pressing him on the issue of fishing and seasonal visas, but we really need an answer, please.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am conscious that I only have two minutes before having to hand back—

Child Sexual Offender Data

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and of course, I agree with her. Parliament should never be in a position where we shy away from confronting those failures with absolute honesty—that is critical. Equally, we must approach this issue with a great deal of care, evidence and proportion.

I looked at the crime survey for England and Wales. It estimates that about 7% to 8% of adults experienced some form of sexual abuse before the age of 16—that is about 3 million people. It shows that the abuse is most commonly perpetrated by someone already known to the child. Other Members have alluded to this: it could be a family member or acquaintance—often a trusted adult or family friend—and, in fact, a growing proportion of abuse now takes place online. That matters, and it is an important issue to raise in this debate, because the majority of child sexual abuse in this country does not take place in the form of organised group offending.

Although grooming gang cases are among the most serious, heinous and disturbing forms of abuse, they are not the totality. It is important, as many other Members have said today, that we reflect the totality of child sexual exploitation in Britain. We should not narrow our national understanding of this crime to a single form of offending that might risk not reflecting on where harm is actually occurring. That does not mean that we should avoid difficult questions where patterns or clusters of offending emerge. On the contrary, we should be prepared to follow the evidence. Honestly, I do not think we have always done that; often we have not.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Yemm]

I will happily give way, and this will be the final intervention that I take.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very conscious of the title of the debate, which is, “Child Sexual Offender Data”. I am also conscious that in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, we have had sexual abuse through some churches and organisations. Things have happened in Northern Ireland, and if we are to collect child sexual offender data, it is important that it is shared between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England in case perpetrators move between those places, as perhaps they have in the past. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that all regions share the data to ensure that wherever the perpetrators are and whatever they have done, they are accountable?

[Steve Yemm]

The hon. Member makes a profoundly important point, which I completely agree with—as might be expected.

We must take on those difficult questions and be prepared to follow the evidence, including all those questions on nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Where those factors can be properly recorded and are operationally relevant, we should of course record them. However, that information always has to be treated carefully, interpreted responsibly and understood within the wider safeguarding environment. The data should help protect children; it should not become a substitute for serious safeguarding policy. That is why any approach to statutory data collection must be rooted in thinking about operational safeguarding. It should not be approached in the light of symbolism, political pressure or other types of political correctness.

Good data helps public authorities identify children at risk earlier, allocate resources and understand patterns of offending and allows us to intervene so that fewer children are harmed. Ultimately, the debate comes down to trust. People in my Mansfield constituency want confidence again that the institutions that serve them are honest, competent and focused above all else on protecting children. They want consistency in safeguarding, accountability where there are failures and reassurance that no category of abuse is ignored, minimised or politically inconvenient for anyone.

I understand the motives behind the petition, which I wholeheartedly support, but I believe that any statutory requirement we make has to be based on evidence, operationally meaningful and genuinely focused on improving child protection, not driven by any type of incomplete narrative. Above all, as other Members have pointed out, our duty in this House is very simple: it is to protect children, learn from past failures and ensure that every form of child sexual abuse is confronted with the seriousness, honesty and resolve that it demands.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

It is with regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this Bill. The elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice, by substantial margins, to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us.

In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the Government agree that the enforcement of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate. Fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate use of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrats want early action on this, so we have brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of Royal Assent.

It is particularly regrettable that the Opposition have returned yet again to Lords amendment 359, albeit in modified form. The amendment is simply unworkable, and it is wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive Governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the Government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attack, but requiring the Government to in effect give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security. Their lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment that any responsible Government can or should entertain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the papers today, there are pictures of six ladies who are going to be executed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is in charge in Iran, because they protested in the streets for liberty and freedom. For those six ladies whose lives are on the line and for the millions of people in Iran who want freedom, I think the Government should proscribe the IRGC, and they should not delay in doing so. I say respectfully to the Minister that it is time to face the realities we have in this world.

[Sarah Jones]

None of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran. None of us supports the Iranian Government and none of us supports the IRGC. We have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, to prevent them from coming here and to take their assets where we can do so. The point is that this Parliament is not the place for a Government to say one way or the other what they are going to proscribe or not proscribe. That is not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way we are going to operate now. However, I get the hon. Gentleman’s point for sure. None of us supports the IRGC or anything it does, and we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths we have seen in recent times and, indeed, over many years.

In conclusion, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100. Let us send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I will explain what we want to see as we go forward. It is important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making its decision, and that will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that being said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu that builds on the previous Government amendment. It offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations, and we hope it addresses their lordships’ concerns.

The amendment in lieu extends the list of considerations that the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider as part of a youth diversion order application to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others, beyond the youth justice teams mandated in clause 174 of the Bill. That will extend to applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order. It will go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than there simply being a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that with these changes, the Liberal Democrats will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment.

Lastly, Lords amendment 359 relates to the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Opposition seek to return to this issue yet again. Successive Governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section 3 has been met. To suggest, as the amendment provides, that the Government should review every organisation related to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent is simply not a serious proposition. To help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section 3 of the 2000 Act.

Before I conclude, let me briefly explain Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role-playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content that mimics child sex abuse and risks normalising such horrific conduct. The Government amendments agreed in the Lords clarify the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. That will ensure that the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts.

I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. It is entitled to ask this House to think again. On each of these four issues I am addressing today, we have already done that once.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for her hard work. In the other place, Lord Weir of Ballyholme highlighted freedom of speech in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. Within the Bill coming forward tonight, there is a fine line in terms of the expression of belief, such as through street preaching. Does the Minister believe that the legislation will ensure that people in this Christian nation can publicly speak the word of God in every corner? Some of us believe that it cannot. Can the Minister confirm that, please?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place.

Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Rural communities across the country know only too well the consequences of hare coursing, and making an example of it and that being seen in our community sends a real message to those who would offend in such a way.

Lords amendment 359 relates to proscription of the IRGC. There is simply no suitable argument as to why the Government should refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations. I am sure that the Home Secretary and Ministers will once again, as justification for inaction, point to the fact that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC. The reality is that the international situation is now radically different from when we left office almost two years ago. Even before the current conflict began, it was clear that the IRGC was ramping up aggressive activity. It oversaw the deaths of more than 40,000 protesters, and overseas it has continued to extend its influence through the backing of terrorist cells. In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation.

[Jim Shannon]

Just yesterday, two young men in their 20s and 30s who had stood up for freedom in Iran were hanged by the IRGC, because it is in charge there at the moment. Four weeks ago, six people whose only crime was fighting for freedom by protesting on the streets were hanged by the neck until they were dead. Is it not now time, regardless of what is happening in the world, immediately to proscribe the IRGC, given everything it has done that is despicable, wicked and evil?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can tell by your smile that you were not expecting to call me, but I am very grateful that you spied me in this corner at the back of the Chamber.

You will know because I have said it before, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste crime, fly-tipping and the rest have, sadly, had too much of an impact in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am thinking of Walleys quarry landfill site and the other examples that continue to blight my community, which I have talked about since my election to this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) noted, the impact fly-tipping can have on rural communities and our constituents’ lives speaks for itself not just in our surgeries, but in our inboxes. I am thinking of all the people in Betley, Bradwell and Audley who have shared with me the corrosive impact that fly-tipping, industrial crime and waste crime have on communities such as mine.

Conscious of the fact that you did not plan to call me, Madam Deputy Speaker—and judging by the looks of Members, they are keen to get to the votes—

[Jim Shannon]

Well said!

[Adam Jogee]

It was very well said, but it is also important that my constituents are heard in the fight against fly-tipping and keeping our communities safe, clean and green.

When the Minister winds up, I hope she will provide confirmation to Members of the House and to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that strengthening the statutory guidance on enforcement, including the use of vehicle seizure powers, will help councils. This is important because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme will be voting in the Newcastle district borough council elections on Thursday 7 May, and I really hope that people in my community vote for the excellent Labour candidates on the ballot paper that day. It is also important because we need our councils to take tougher, more visible action against the fly-tippers who blight our communities. I hope the Minister will provide that confirmation when she winds up, because it is important not just to me, but to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme.