Refugee Citizenship Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, for what I think is the second time today. It is, and always will be, a pleasure.

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). In the short time that he has been here, he has made a reputation for himself as a fighter and a person who speaks up for his constituents. I sit straight across the Chamber from him and I am always impressed by him. We do not agree on everything but today, on this subject matter, he and I agree. This is one thing we can definitely agree on, and well done to him.

I am grateful to address this House on an issue that tests not only our policies but our principles, and that is how we treat those who come seeking refuge and hope. Today I speak on refugee and citizen rights in the United Kingdom, a subject of both legal importance and moral imperative. This March, the Government imposed a blanket ban on citizenship for individuals who entered the UK irregularly, even if they have been granted asylum and have lived here for years. The Refugee Council estimates that some 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum may now be blocked from ever obtaining British citizenship. I ask the Minister, who as she knows I respect immensely, to answer the question of those 71,000 who have lived here for a number of years: will they have the opportunity of getting British citizenship?

This week, Parliament will be considering crucial legislation, including the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and the ongoing Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This moment offers a real opportunity to safeguard the future of those who have made the UK their home. I love the diversity that I have in Newtownards. It is not as big as in London, but there are people from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine and all over eastern Europe. They bring history, culture, friendship and social engagement and they enrich us as a society. I believe we should try to maintain that.

The UK has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with those fleeing conflict, persecution and violence. We have honoured our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Yet recent policy changes may have the unintended consequence—I believe it would be unintended; I do not believe it is a policy of Government—of leaving some recognised refugees without a clear pathway to fully participate in society. I want to see them having that right. It is vital that we ensure that those who have been granted asylum are not left in long-term uncertainty.

A clear and fair pathway to citizenship is an important part of helping individuals to put down roots, contribute fully and feel a genuine sense of belonging in the communities that they now call home. Citizenship is more than just paperwork; it represents civic responsibility, stability and inclusion. As Parliament continues to examine the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we must be mindful of our humanitarian responsibilities. That includes ensuring timely decisions on asylum claims, restoring service standards that offer clarity and dignity, and protecting the right to family reunion, which means so much to all of us here. Such steps are not just compassionate; they are also practical and necessary for social cohesion.

Furthermore, we must take care to ensure that assessments of good character do not rest solely on whether someone arrived through irregular routes, which is often a last resort for those fleeing persecution. Each case should be looked at individually, with a recognition of context and care, not with a one-size-fits-all approach that risks deepening hardship for those already in vulnerable situations.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I see the consequences of exclusion every day—not because I am better than anybody else, but because I focus on that and I see more of it happening. That is why it is important to me. Forced statelessness or permanent limbo adversely affect mental health, community cohesion and integration. We must speak not with condemnation, but with compassion and reason. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I share those personal beliefs.

I always try to leave these things with a Bible quotation. The Bible reminds us in Hebrews 13:2:

“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

That verse speaks to the heart of our shared humanity. It is a reminder that how we treat the stranger, the refugee and the vulnerable reflects the depth of our national character as individuals. This House has long stood as a voice for those in need, and we must continue in that tradition. Let us show leadership not only in lawmaking, but in compassion. Let us ensure that our policies uphold both justice and mercy, and let us do so with humility, conviction and care. In defending the rights of refugees, we reaffirm the values that have long made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a place of refuge, opportunity and hope.

Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.

Water Safety Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my constituency neighbour for making that point. There is a great need to work in partnership. We simply do not have as many pools as we used to, be they local authority-run or within schools themselves, but we should be working towards either increasing the number where possible or sharing these vital resources in our communities.

Added to those inequalities, there are ethnic inequalities. Statistically, black children are three times more likely to drown than white children. Water safety education cannot be left to chance or to postcode. It is a vital provision for every part of an island nation such as ours and should not depend on the lottery of family income, school funding or private access to lessons.

Let me tell the House about Joe Abbess. Joe, from Sholing in Southampton, was a bright, responsible and fit 17-year-old young man. He was an ambitious trainee chef at the local college and worked part-time at Southampton football club. He was the kind of teenager that any parent would be proud of—someone who followed the rules and led by example. He was a caring and loyal friend, who was well known in his friendship group as the “dad” figure. On 31 May 2023, Joe and his friends went for a day at Bournemouth beach. They were swimming waist high in the sea as Joe, who was a strong swimmer, had done many, many times before. They were between the safety flags, in full view of lifeguards. But in an instant, a rip current turned their fun into tragedy. The water was very suddenly over their heads. Joe got into difficulty and was pulled further out into the water before disappearing beneath it. Eleven people were rescued from the water that day because of that rip current, and I commend the emergency services for their actions. However, tragically, Joe and 12-year-old Sunnah Khan did not survive.

The coroner reported that it was an accident—a devastating and fatal act of nature. However, the coroner also reported that rip currents can occur anywhere along the UK coastline at any time. How many people, especially children, know that? How many Members in this Chamber would understand, recognise and rightly respond to a rip current? On sunny days such as those we are enjoying at the moment, many will rightly want to enjoy our rivers and beaches. We must do everything we can to ensure that they can do so safely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of water safety education. Sometimes, even strong swimmers can unfortunately get into difficulties. Does he feel there is a role for Education Ministers and local councils to identify where the problems are, whether they are in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom or in our lakes? Unfortunately, some people have jumped into the lakes in my constituency without knowing there were obstructions in the water, to give one example. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be greater partnership work between the Department and councils to identify those problems, so that those who go swimming know exactly what to watch out for?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very relevant point he makes. I will come on to the issue of how we can ensure that education is locally targeted. Each of the situations we face in our constituencies will be that little bit different, so it is important that on top of a compulsory expectation there are locally targeted campaigns.

We would not let someone drive a car without first passing their theory test, so why do not we comprehensively and consistently teach our children about water safety before they enter the water to have fun? This is not about taking away that fun; it is about being aware of the hidden threats, and therefore having the power to do something about it.

I pay tribute to Joe’s mother, Vanessa Abbess, who I am pleased is present in the Gallery today. Ness has become a tireless campaigner, sending hundreds of letters to local schools, working with the Royal Life Saving Society and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and pushing for improved signage in Bournemouth. She brought her powerful story to Parliament earlier this week, when we established the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education. Ness has done all that in the hope that no other family should suffer as the Abbess family has.

The coroner’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year. The coroner said:

“An ideal opportunity to warn and inform all members of the public would be through educating children of the risks. The lack of providing education to children around these risks through the national classroom curriculum could lead to future deaths.”

The report also stated that

“urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths”

and that the Department for Education has

“the power to take such action.”

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report, in which she committed to

“look carefully at what more can be done to support schools to provide water safety education to all pupils,”

and to

“give full consideration to including a requirement that all pupils should be taught about water safety, including the water safety code.”

I urge the Government today to uphold that commitment and to go further.

As has become clear, we need to do more than just teach swimming. As hon. Members have highlighted, access to pools is uneven, lessons vary in quality and duration, and too many children—especially in deprived or minority communities—are being left behind. The Department for Education states:

“All pupils should be taught to swim and how to be safe in and around water”.

Well, yes, they should, but is saying they “should” really enough? At this point, I do not believe so—we can and we must go further. We need to mandate classroom-based water safety education in every school.

I pay tribute to many people who have campaigned on this before, including Rebecca Ramsay from Chorley, who secured some concessions under the previous Government. However, she has recently said that changes are not coming quickly enough. For her son, Dylan, for Joe, for Sunnah and for too many others, I ask the Government to tackle this issue with the urgency that it deserves. The Royal Life Saving Society has already created high-quality classroom resources that are cost-effective and proven to improve children’s understanding and confidence around water. It reaches everyone—through its Water Smart Schools’ campaign, its Splash Safety at Your Pad campaign, and its lifesaving training, accreditation and awards—regardless of background or access to swimming pools. These resources offer a lesson for life. Let us not leave it to chance; let us bring those resources into the heart of our curriculum.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise that her responsibilities lie within education, included in the recommendations are some wider points that I ask her to convey back to Government. First, there is currently no Minister for water safety or drowning prevention in the UK despite having Ministers for fire safety, road safety and other preventable public dangers, and despite Scotland and Wales having dedicated water safety ministerial roles. Why does England not have such a role? The National Water Safety Forum and the World Health Organisation have both urged the UK Government to appoint such Ministers, and I echo that call today. The coroner noted that one in four children still does not receive any swimming education, and that number has almost certainly worsened since the pandemic.

Secondly, I ask the Government to commit to a national swimming and water safety strategy, based on up-to-date evidence about children’s access across this country to swimming lessons and water safety education. Thirdly, my major request is that when the national curriculum is updated, following the current review, and is then taught in every school as mandated in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will the Government use that opportunity to enshrine water safety as a core, compulsory part of every child’s education? The point of the curriculum is not just to pass exams; it is to prepare our young people for life. If Labour’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, here is just about the greatest opportunity that we can offer them: the opportunity to learn and to live.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I join my hon. Friend in recognising the value of outdoor pursuits and the value of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, which I benefited from taking part in myself when I was at school. The Department has funded 300 schools in areas of high deprivation to start offering the award, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is providing funding of a further £1.5 million this financial year to extend the scheme. My hon. Friend is of course keen to ensure that his constituents benefit and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss that further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers. Worryingly, obesity levels are predicted to rise between 20% and 30% in the next five to 10 years. To combat that, physical education is important, as is the Government looking at children’s diets at school. Those two things can address obesity, so I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We want all schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum, including outdoor activities, sport, PE and physical activity, and to ensure that every child can benefit. That is why we are legislating to ensure that the national curriculum applies to all schools, through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Windrush Day 2025

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the huge contribution of Hongkongers in his constituency. I have asked the Minister before about some of the changes the Government propose to the time period for indefinite leave to remain. The Minister has answered that a consultation is under way, and I am sure that she will talk about that in her closing remarks. I feel that we need to value the contribution made by those who are new arrivals in our country, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The Liberal Democrats will keep pushing the Government to right the wrongs forced on to the Windrush generation, including by urgently implementing the lessons-learned review in full and making the compensation scheme independent of the Home Office. Like the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), I hope very much that the Minister is in a position to update the House on the progress being made on righting those wrongs and delivering justice.

The Lib Dems have long pushed for the implementation of a comprehensive race equality strategy, which would include provisions aimed at reducing the disproportionately high and utterly shameful maternal mortality rates for black women and for eliminating racial disparities in maternal health, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned this evening.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to have a point on the record, as it is very important to do so—I was talking to the Parliamentary Private Secretary beforehand, and I talked to the Minister earlier on. On behalf of Windrush people who got their status in Northern Ireland, I will say that the Windrush scheme for Northern Ireland enabled people to work and remain and to have equality with the rest of us. I put on record our thanks for that scheme, because those in Northern Ireland who came through the Windrush scheme were enabled to help our country and Northern Ireland be a better place because of the culture, history, and interaction and social action that they bring.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Each successive generation that arrives on these shores, as people have done for millennia, has added to our rich cultural and social fabric. He is absolutely right to highlight his part of the world and the impact that people have had in his community.

On the things that we should also look at, I will say that we should end the disproportionate use of stop and search. We should also look very carefully at the use of live facial recognition, which is most likely to wrongly identify black men and women.

In so many ways, we are holding this debate because of the tireless campaigning of many of the Windrush generation, not least the Liberal Democrat peer, my noble Friend Baroness Floella Benjamin. Floella’s journey is emblematic of the Windrush generation. She arrived in Britain from Trinidad in 1960 at the age of 10, accompanied by three of her siblings. Her childhood was marked by persistent racism; she recalls every day as a battle where she was either ignored or subjected to verbal abuse. During a house viewing, neighbours called the police, accusing her family of stealing furniture from what would soon be their own home.

Floella, of course, was not alone. Many children of her generation endured those indignities in silence, shouldering the burden of rejection by clinging to the hope that life would one day improve. Leaving school at 16, she chartered an extraordinary path—first as an actress, then as a presenter, writer, independent producer and always a tireless advocate for the care, education and welfare of children worldwide. Today, she chairs the Windrush Commemoration Committee, which is charged with establishing a lasting tribute to the Windrush generation and its descendants. Among the Committee’s notable achievements is the unveiling of the national Windrush monument at Waterloo station, which was designed by celebrated Jamaican artist Basil Watson, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The monument stands as a powerful symbol of the immense hardship and equally immense contributions of the Windrush generation to British life. Floella’s voice remains a powerful one, holding the Government to account to ensure that the Windrush generation receives the recognition and justice that it so rightly deserves.

I believe it was Floella who first proposed the idea of Windrush Day as a national celebration of the moment when Caribbean communities came to rebuild Britain in the face of adversity. It is thanks to her determination that we are able to mark this occasion and speak of it today. As well as being the giver of the best hugs in Parliament, she is a celebrated author, using her experience to educate future generations with her writing. It is right that we celebrate Floella and all the Windrush generation today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I think that Windrush and other scandals that have plagued our society are a stain on the UK. Whether the cause was, as the hon. Member said, a few bad apples or any other reason, the fact remains that we have to take action to address the issue that was created. We must ensure that those who were affected are compensated, that those who were affected and cannot be compensated are recognised, and that measures are put in place so that it cannot happen again. That is what I am interested in. I was not here in the last Parliament—that is not an excuse, but all I can do is my very best to ensure that injustices are not repeated in future.

As I was saying, the compensation scheme has paid over £93 million, and that figure continues to rise. We hope the Government will continue to ensure that those settlements are paid.

However, as we look forward to this year’s Windrush Day, while we must reflect on and learn from past injustices, we should also reflect on and honour the contributions of this remarkable generation. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who chaired the Windrush Commemoration Committee, spoke in a parliamentary debate about the importance of celebrating the positive aspects of Windrush Day. While for some, that name will forever be associated with scandal, I welcome the efforts of communities and members of the Windrush generation to reclaim it in a positive light. Many campaigners want the term “Windrush” to represent, not the scandal, but the vast and very many contributions made to the UK by this generation. As His Majesty the King noted when meeting members of the community on the 75th anniversary of the ship’s arrival, this was an “indomitable generation”. He said:

“History is, thankfully and finally, beginning to accord a rightful place to those men and women of the Windrush generation.”

A critical element of that recognition is commemoration, and—as we have heard—we should be grateful for the work of Basil Watson, whose magnificent national Windrush monument stands as a powerful tribute to the community. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) reflected, its location at Waterloo means that thousands of people pass it every day, a constant reminder to those departing or arriving at the station. When the decision was made to locate that monument at Waterloo, officials said that the decision was taken because it was where thousands of Windrush pioneers first arrived in London before starting new lives across the UK. For many members of the Windrush generation, Waterloo was not the end of a journey, but the beginning of a new life in this country and of the many contributions that they would go on to make. A former Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government captured the essence of the monument:

“Basil Watson’s sculpture perfectly captures the spirit of Windrush. In it we see the strength, hope and expectation of those who arrived with little and yet gave so much.”

Of course, that statue—while symbolic—is only one part of the broader support provided.

As Members will recall, in 2020 the previous Government launched a fund to support community-led initiatives celebrating Windrush Day. That funding was intended to enable projects across England to commemorate the Windrush generation and their descendants. It formed part of a wider effort to recognise the Windrush generation’s lasting contribution to British society, and I am pleased to see that the funding continues in 2025, with 30 projects supported under the current grant scheme. I understand that the Government have dedicated £4.25 million in funding towards honouring the Windrush legacy.

In addition, while the Government have a vital role to play, the 75th anniversary also saw a wide range of private contributions, from events and exhibitions to documentaries, articles and much more.

[Jim Shannon]

It should also be recognised that drama and TV have a way of enriching the Windrush story. I think of probably my favourite programme—it is perhaps the hon. Lady’s favourite programme—“Call the Midwife”, which shows the drama of the Windrush scheme through the people in that programme, what they endured and what they have given to society. Does she recognise that drama and TV also can tell the story of Windrush in a great way?

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for that. Television, drama and even radio and other non-visual means can show the story in a lot better light than anyone making a contribution at this Dispatch Box or in this Chamber. Seeing these things in real life, in colour and out in the streets is the way to bring them to life and to make sure that we recognise every day how the community is completely entwined in our society. The 80th anniversary in a few years’ time will be another opportunity to commemorate the enduring impact of this generation and to encourage further works from those in the creative industry who play such a vital role in shaping the public consciousness.

Although today has been chosen as an appropriate moment to hold this debate in advance of Windrush Day on 22 June, commemorations need not be limited to anniversaries or milestones. I am confident that those involved will continue to highlight and educate others about the vital role that individuals played, their resilience and their ability to overcome adversity.

More broadly, today allows us to reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions to our institutions, industries and, importantly, our communities. It is worth remembering that HMT Empire Windrush was transporting dozens of Caribbean passengers who had served as RAF airmen—many returning from leave and others rejoining the service. Many more from this generation and their descendants would go on to serve our country in our armed forces. That is in addition to the countless individuals of the Windrush generation who helped build and sustain the NHS, particularly when post-war UK had an acute workforce shortage. That is not to mention the enormous contributions across so many other fields, including science, education, social work, business and countless others.

I acknowledge the Government’s ongoing work to address the injustices that occurred in the Home Office. There are still claims to be resolved and payments to be made, and challenges remain in overcoming the consequences of past errors. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the schemes established by the previous Government continue to deliver for every eligible person. I welcome the fact that Patrick Vernon and Baroness Benjamin and others campaigned for a Windrush Day. It has given us all the opportunity to focus on the stories of those who came to this country and contributed so much, sharing how they came to Britain, how they were shaped by it and how they have helped shape it in turn. That is vital. As such, I thank Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents in the debate.

SEND Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a powerful point. My appeal to colleagues in the Chamber—particularly, perhaps, to newer Members —is to focus on the distribution. It can be quite hard to get one’s head around the many issues that are involved—the overall national issues of quantum, service delivery, training and the rest of it—and distribution can easily get left behind, yet it is vital. I cannot say that it brings a great deal of joy or satisfaction to Members of Parliament to pursue it, because so many people look blank when it is mentioned, but distribution is important, and I hope that colleagues will want to take on the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Very quickly, some children thrive academically, while some thrive practically. It is all about finding the right place for them, whether as a doctor, a mechanic, a plasterer or a farmer. When it comes to checking on a child’s ability, and ensuring that they find their place, we must acknowledge that there is not a standard box for all; it is different for each child.

[Graham Stuart]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head.

Many across this House will recognise the stories of the schools I have just mentioned, because the same thing is playing out in constituencies across the country. Parents are becoming de facto care co-ordinators; schools are dipping into ever-shrinking budgets to fund specialist provision; and local authorities are caught between legal responsibilities and budgetary reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for setting the scene for us all incredibly well. I am going to give a Presbyterian sermon; for those who do not know what that is, it comes in three parts.

First, some children thrive academically and others practically. Some brains think in one way and others in different ways. We need all of them for a functioning society. We need mechanics as well as doctors; we need plasterers as much as farmers. It takes all sorts, and we need to train children not to fit into a standard box, but to find the box that fits them. That is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to manage when the range of children is so wide and the pressure is so extensive.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the current model, families must first endure an unnecessarily prolonged, complex and emotionally draining diagnostic process before resources finally begin to trickle in. That is a reactive approach, which not only delays the sense of support but undermines the principle of educational equality and inclusion. Does he agree that we must recalibrate the system so that diagnostic services are prioritised, adequately funded and made accessible locally for every family in need?

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is listening, and I am sure she will respond positively to the hon. Lady when the time comes.

SEN is not about writing off a child’s ability, but about ensuring that they find their place in the system in order to achieve their potential.

The second part of my Presbyterian sermon is about the stats for Northern Ireland. I know they are not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will give some figures and talk about a solution that I hope might be helpful. In Northern Ireland, SEN costs £65 million a year, but that figure is about 14% less than what is needed this year. The number of children with special educational needs has risen since 2017 from some 18,000 to some 27,000. In the same period, the number of children enrolled in special schools increased by some 25%. Funding is not meeting need, and we must look at other ways of doing that. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland is looking at units attached to mainstream schools, which provide a best-of-both-worlds approach. I hope that that solution can be of some help. The Department is looking at how well that can enable children to be a part of mainstream and better equipped to move forward.

The units provide additional specialist facilities on a mainstream school site for pupils with an EHC plan. They focus on specific needs such as speech, language, communication or autism. The classes are smaller, and there are more teachers to help each student. The teachers are trained to work with pupils in the designated area of need, the classrooms are adapted to suit pupils’ needs and the pupils spend a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 100% of their teaching and learning time in the unit, joining mainstream peers’ classes when appropriate.

That is one of the solutions that Northern Ireland Education Ministers and education authorities have come up with to try to address the issue when funding is lower. I am conscious of time, so I conclude by saying that perhaps that unit approach is the way forward. I hope that there will be buy-in from staff throughout the United Kingdom. The goal is a UK-wide education system that is fit for all and accessible for all needs. The pressure is great, but so too is the reward in teaching, and we need to find a way to get the greatest reward for our teachers, classroom assistants and all who are involved in school life. That can only come with appropriate Government support, which I know the Minister is always ready and willing to give.

Outdoor Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

It is vital to ensure that people have access to nature. As somebody who represents national parks, I always think that they are there for everybody, not just those of us who live there. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Outdoor education is crucial to our economy, culture and communities in Cumbria, and we are deeply proud of the whole sector and the many hundreds of people who work in it. The benefits of outdoor education experiences are obvious to anyone who has ever gone for a hike through a muddy field while wrestling with an Ordnance Survey map, abseiled, potholed, spent the night camped in a lakeland forest, climbed a rockface or kayaked down a river. These are experiences that form young people and stay with them for the long term. We know, not only through academic research but powerfully through our own experiences, the transformational and tangible good that outdoor learning delivers for the lives of children and young people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Farron]

Go for it.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is absolutely right, and I support his endeavour to ensure that the Minister will respond positively to him. In February 2025, the Education Minister in Northern Ireland launched the outdoor learning project to enhance pupils’ experience of outdoor learning, with some £4 million invested for pre-schools, nursery schools, primary schools and special schools to buy outdoor furniture and equipment to enhance high-quality outdoor learning. If you want to get your feet muddy, come to Northern Ireland.

[Tim Farron]

It is an offer I dare not refuse. In a moment or two, I will say something about cross-party working across the devolved nations, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point as to how Northern Ireland is taking the lead.

Research from the University of Cumbria demonstrates the benefits for young people of widening their horizons, building their confidence and character, and nurturing a love of learning, greater awareness of nature and an intelligent approach to risk. Once a child has overcome their fear to crawl through a dark and cramped cave, wade through a fast river or work with a classmate to build something, other challenges in their normal lives back at home are put into perspective.

Free School Meals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

We know that too many life chances are scarred by poverty, which affects children up and down our country. Levels of poverty have increased by 900,000 since 2010. It is worth saying that this initiative is extra money above and beyond what already goes into schools. As I mentioned, the child poverty strategy will be published later this year and may conclude on the issues that my hon. Friend describes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome it and say well done. It just so happens that it is this Minister and this Government who have done it so well, so I give a special thanks. I very much welcome the increase to free school meals. I read the Government’s press release this morning with some interest. My question is quite specific. In Northern Ireland, one in four children experience relative poverty, with one in five in absolute poverty and two thirds of those with only one single parent working. Our children in Northern Ireland need this help. I know that it is not this Minister’s responsibility, but do the announcement and these moneys mean that the Barnett consequentials will ensure that some of the benefit can come to Northern Ireland directly?

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is a real champion on these issues. He will appreciate that education is a devolved matter. The spending review next week will set out details on the Barnett consequentials. The child poverty strategy is a UK-wide document, and I know that colleagues from Northern Ireland have been feeding into that review. As he knows, I meet regularly with my counterpart in Northern Ireland on issues of importance to the UK.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into issues that may well be addressed in the statement that is due very shortly. He recognises that schools have a whole range of costs to manage. As a Department, we want to maximise every penny that schools have, and to minimise outlays that do not reach children or the frontline—those who work with children. We will continue to do that. There is a whole range of tools available at the Department. We really encourage schools to use those tools in any way they can in the management of their budgets, and to support really smart accounting to maximise the impact of their budgets for their children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question. Nobody can doubt her commitment to the change that is necessary to keep schools working and teachers in place. I always try to be helpful in the Chamber. Northern Ireland has come through a period of teacher strike action, which led to years of no school inspections, and to altered classroom practices, so there is a need to re-engage with teachers. The Minister knows well that engaging with teachers at all stages is essential, or the losers will undoubtedly be the parents and, of course, the pupils. How will she ensure a spirit of co-operation to ensure in-depth education? We all hope that co-operation will be reciprocated by unions and senior leadership teams in all schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman is always helpful and thoughtful in his contributions. As a Department, we inherited a school system that was in crisis: school buildings crumbling, teachers leaving in their droves and children not getting the start in life that they deserve. We are working on a number of fronts, but we recognise that the outcomes are not ones that the Government alone can deliver; we need to deliver them in partnership with schools, teachers and those who represent them. We speak and work regularly right across the board to maximise those outcomes for children, and I know the hon. Gentleman shares our determination to see that across the country.

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for leading the debate. The crowd that is present indicates how important the issue is. Adoptive and kinship care is a wonderful thing to offer children a safe and caring environment to grow up in, but there is no doubt that it has challenges that need addressing, and in particular need Government support. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to talk about that.

To give an understanding of the topic, in Northern Ireland there are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 children living in informal kinship care, and the number of children living with friends and family is consistently increasing. As of March ’24, there were some 4,000 children under the care of local authorities, even though a number of children had been adopted out of care in 2023—there are still many more in care than are being adopted. Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, seems to have the highest rate of kinship care, and there is no doubt that more should be done to support those agreeing to take on the care of relatives.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentions the challenges that kinship carers face; one is the legal complexity of the current system. I recently spoke to a constituent who has a special guardianship order in place for her grandson, for whom she is the kinship carer. On her diagnosis with lung disease, she went to see whether it was possible to add her son, the child’s uncle, to that agreement. She was told that it was not legally possible—but thankfully, and thanks to advice from the Family Rights Group, she learned that it is. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to simplify the legal processes around kinship care?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is frustrating to have a legalistic system that seems to try to hold up the process, when people are looking for a good way forward for the child.

In October 2024, the Government announced that it would provide some £40 million to trial a new kinship allowance in 10 local authorities in England. The aim is to test whether paying some form of allowance to kinship carers could encourage more people to take a family member in when needed. The Government have said that trial will start in the autumn. Finances are often a block, and relatives who already have children of their own often find they simply cannot afford to take on kinship care. Would the Minister and the Government—those who hold the purse strings—consider extending funding for that trial to Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the figures surrounding children living in kinship care with family members are higher? A trial in those two places would give a better perspective, if the Minister does not mind me saying so.

There are many reasons why a family may choose to adopt, but post-adoption support is paramount. I have no doubt that, with specialist long-term assistance, relationships can thrive. Access to therapeutic services for children is incredibly important to support the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing. For example, in education—I find this to be of major importance—children will naturally discuss their family environments, their parents and their grandparents. For many young people who do not have the same environment, those conversations in schools can become uncomfortable for them. Although we have fantastic pastoral support in schools, perhaps it is not a bad idea for outside specialists to engage with those kids in school to ensure that they have the specific support that they need.

Statutory adoption pay is paid at 90% of earnings for the first six weeks and at a further, lower rate of £187.18 a week for the next 33 weeks. Perhaps kinship payments could also be looked at for those relatives who take on care from birth, so that they are not left behind when supporting young children, and giving them the best start.

To conclude, the sacrifice that adoptive and kinship carers make for the lives of young people is incredibly wonderful. Many people out there make that decision for the betterment of a young person and to give them the opportunity to grow up. Government support for them must be unwavering so that they do not struggle, but have access to sufficient finance and wellbeing support. For the children, having access to long-term assistance will allow them to thrive. What more can we ask for in this debate other than their bright futures?