Cabinet Office

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens.

We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his introduction and his wise words, ever mindful of modern warfare and the way it is going, and the changes that the Government and we as a nation need to be prepared for. When it comes to resilience and drone technology and how to use that to the betterment and the safety and security of this country, does he believe that we need to be at the top of that tree to ensure that we can protect our people across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Matt Western]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The nature of our security is so multifaceted now in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago. Globally, we are beginning to get our heads around—I am sure the Government recognise this—how we need to pivot and reset ourselves into a very different defence and security posture, because our defence is as much on our mobile phone and our laptops, and to our way of life and our democracy, as it is at our borders, and that is crucial.

My Committee was encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government believe that they are on track to hit the target of 1.5% of GDP on security and resilience by 2035 by 2027—well ahead of time. But they have also been evasive on exactly what the spend will entail. Like any target, there is a risk of money being merely shuffled from one pot to another—an administrative exercise rather than genuine additional funding. My Committee recommended that the spending is prioritised on investment in systems that can help build long-term resilience, in addition to spending on maintenance of basic civil infrastructure.

When we questioned the Minister, we sought to clarify what new resilience projects and capabilities the 1.5% would entail. We were given, I am afraid to say, only vague answers. Disappointingly, the Government’s response to our report on the national security strategy failed to elucidate much further. We recognise that there are reasons for being protective about certain information and not disclosing too much detail, but we seek more specificity in exactly how the Government are making critical infrastructure in the UK more resilient through this spending.

In fact, I recently met the high commissioner of Canada who explained that they are investing hundreds of millions in large-scale infrastructure projects in their part of the High North, be it railways, road networks or deep sea ports. They are all planned to boost resilience across the nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the opening of the Ministry of Defence indoor testing facility in Swindon; it is great news. He is right that it is vital that the civil service opportunities that it provides are strategically located, partly through the relocation of roles, but it is also crucial to ensure that this fantastic facility harnesses the skills and talents of his constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very supportive of the Government’s tactic and policy. Back home in Northern Ireland, the relocation of civil service roles has been very important, but there is an issue that concerns me, and my constituents have asked me about it. Civil servants who are settled in, for example, Dundonald, outside Belfast, might then relocate to Londonderry or somewhere like Newry, many miles away, but they have a commitment to the communities they live in. Those who have permanent jobs and have been working somewhere for many years have children at school, a home and a mortgage, and a local social circle. Sometimes relocation is just not acceptable or even possible for them. Could the Minister indicate that there will be fair play for civil servants who have shown many years of commitment, that they will not have to move, and that there will be provision made for them?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We have to get the balance right. We have many fantastic civil servants embedded in their communities and delivering for them, which is great, but I am sure that he will agree with me on the importance of the opportunity that civil service roles offer to stimulate growth in regions across our nations. I am sure that he would support that. I look forward to continuing this discussion with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

SMEs, individuals and communities should look at the national advice that is published and check on gov.uk/protect, so that they can take the advice. It is simple and it is up there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, a 2024 study found that only around one fifth of direct public procurement spend across the wider public sector is awarded to small businesses. Given the reliance on smaller businesses in Northern Ireland, what steps will the Minister take with Cabinet colleagues to improve their access to public procurement?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

We are taking a number of steps to improve SME access to Government procurement, and I outlined those earlier. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him about the specific measures we are taking in Northern Ireland, but we are working across the United Kingdom to ensure that our procurement budget does everything possible to support SMEs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank Pride in North Cumbria and Cumbria Pride for their brilliant work. My hon. Friend is right to say that Pride events are a wonderful asset to the community. Given recent decisions to defund Pride events, this is a lesson that Reform councils clearly need to learn. I can confirm that this Labour Government will ban abusive conversion practices, and we will be publishing our draft Bill very soon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am mindful of the question asked by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and the Minister’s response. What protection has the Minister put in place for those who actively and honestly seek help and prayerful support, and who are seeking guidance in churches and through Christian and faith-based groups? It is always important that people have an opportunity to seek that guidance. I know the Minister will be committed to that, and I would be very pleased to hear her answer.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I look forward to discussing this matter further with him when we have published our draft Bill. Let me be very clear that what we are talking about is criminalising abuse that should happen to nobody, anywhere, in any situation or setting.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.

At the outset, I would like to bear witness to those who have fought for justice for so long, and who have given evidence to the inquiry. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson).

I am aware that many Members who would like to be here are in Makerfield for the by-election, so I may ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have a lot to cover, because a lot of people are missing. The Government are about to lay another set of orders before Parliament, and the community and campaigners have demanded that we make representations on their behalf before they are laid, so I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for moving us up the list and granting us this debate in such short time.

I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for securing the funds to get the compensation process under way. I know that he takes the matter to heart, and it would be understandable if he felt slightly harshly treated, given that he has secured £9.8 billion for the compensation process, but I am sure he understands that because the community of the infected and affected have had to fight so hard for so long, and have lost many friends and relatives along the way in the face of huge opposition, they are not ready to praise anyone—not until everyone has received justice.

In his address during the service of remembrance and reflection at St Paul’s, Sir Brian Langstaff said that this catastrophe was no accident. It has been called the deadliest man-made disaster in post-war history. In the ’70s and ’80s, people knowingly gave infected products to unsuspecting patients. In the USA, the production of blood products farmed from volunteers and prisoners took off after the USA deregulated harvesting blood products. Pooling products from different people meant that entire supplies became infected. As early as 1975, “World in Action” exposed the dangers of these products. In 1983, Government experts knew of the risks of contaminated blood products. Costs meant that heat treatment to clean the products was not introduced.

In 1989, the then Government were advised to provide victims with compensation on humanitarian grounds. The Government rejected that advice on financial grounds. The Government continued to withhold information from the infected and their families. Had they been told, they could have sought medical help, and many would have avoided tragedy. The World Health Organisation expressed concern about the commercial supply of products from paid donors, but still the practice went on, and victims were kept in the dark.

Pupils at Treloar’s school were experimented on. Between 1970 and 1987, 122 pupils with haemophilia attended the school. At the time that the evidence was given to the inquiry, only 30 remained alive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that your constituent Gary Webster is one of those; another is my constituent Lee Moorey. I am pleased to say that he is still with us. Lee did not find out until he was 14 that he had been infected with HIV. He was in his 30s when he found out that he had been infected with hepatitis C, and he found out that he has hepatitis B only last year. There is no escaping the fact that, had people been under an obligation to tell the truth at the outset, many lives would have been saved.

We welcome the changes that the Government announced on 14 April this year, following the consultation that they held from October 2025 to January 2026. However, there remain concerns that some elements of the compensation system still require change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for setting the scene so well, and I am sure that everyone in the House is committed to the same objectives. The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the issues. My constituents back home face significant stress over delays, and unfair deductions when compensation is passed on to the estate of the bereaved. Does he agree that we need a timescale for the moneys to be paid out, so that all those who have experienced delays will know the timeframe? Perhaps the Minister, who is always very responsive and helpful, will come to the House regularly to update us on that before the end of this year, and certainly by the conclusion of spring 2027.

[Clive Efford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later.

There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000.

But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood.

Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing.

Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?

National Resilience

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is a privilege to lead this evening’s Adjournment debate on improving national resilience. I am also glad that the Security Minister is responding. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As we have both served in what is now the Special Forces Strike Group, albeit at different times, I know he is one of the few people in this House who has seen the sharp end of national insecurity at first hand.

It has sadly become commonplace to say that we are living through unprecedented times. The international system we have all lived under has fractured, war has broken out across multiple continents and technological upheaval and a warming planet compound to create an increasingly volatile world.

We hear repeatedly across this House that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. It is repeated so often that it risks becoming a platitude, but here is the hard question: are we actually living up to that duty here in the UK in 2026? This evening, I will set out why I believe we are falling short and, more importantly, what we might do about it and how we might build a country and citizenship resilient enough to meet the growing and interconnected number of threats to our homeland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member. Resilience is about not just defence but health. To cast the mind of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House back to the national emergency of covid-19, the report of the UK covid inquiry mentioned “fatal strategic flaws”. The NHS did not collapse, although it came close and patients often did not receive the standard of care that they were due, and that led to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Does the hon. Member not agree that serious concerns about the lack of the health service’s effective surge capacity need to be addressed in anticipation of another national health emergency and to secure national resilience in the face of medical uncertainty?

[David Reed]

The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally.

The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services.

Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun.

One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places.

We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well:

“You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.”

As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very powerfully. To those who would consider any kind of racist activity or any further criminality or disorder, my message is very simple: break the law, and get ready to face the full consequences of the law.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers, which are helpful to those of us asking questions.

I totally condemn the violence that took place in Belfast. Yesterday I stood in this place and spoke about people’s right to protest peacefully and to have their Government take account of their fears and their views. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I can say that not one stone was thrown by the hundreds and hundreds of people who stood by the cenotaph in Newtownards last night. Women with zimmer frames, young mothers with children and families stood in companionable silence, and the PSNI has confirmed that no thuggery whatsoever took place.

Those people did what they needed to do to have their voice heard. Now it is time for the Government to do what they need to do, and listen to and act for those decent and reasonable people who are not thugs and who have valid fears. Will the Minister confirm that the views of the reasonable thousands throughout the Province who quietly asked for their voice to be heard will not be ignored as a result of the loud actions of some terrible thugs?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully, and with huge experience of these matters. I completely agree with his central point that we must not allow the violent criminality and disorder that we have seen to drown out the important but peaceful voices of those who, entirely understandably, have concerns and express anger about the situation. He was right to make that point, and I can give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take it.

Preparedness for National Emergencies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree; that is a point I will come to later. We must engage with the public if we want their permission to plan for resilience.

Article 3 tells us that preparedness must be constant and not confined to defence Departments. It must be collective, but it requires active participation across the system. I would be grateful if the Minister picked up on how resilience is being embedded across Departments in the areas of threat highlighted by the national security strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward; I spoke to him beforehand. Does he agree that if groups tasked with preparedness training, such as the building resilience in communities project in Northern Ireland, are to be effective, they must be well funded? The work carried out with local groups to build grassroots disaster resilience can bring about results only if there is the scope to invest in reaching out and if groups are not hampered by tiny budgets. This is not just about England but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively.

[Graeme Downie]

As ever, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I always agree with his interventions, particularly when they are made so well. There is a need to make sure that we break outside of the M25, frankly, when we talk about resilience. We also need to look seriously at the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. What is striking about many of the risks we now face is that they do not require a full-scale conflict. They can arise from hybrid threats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) mentioned: those are much below the threshold of war but are capable of causing real and widespread disruption.

In a recent discussion with senior officials about the threat of Chinese-manufactured cellular internet of things modules, in my role as chair of the Coalition on Secure Technology, it was suggested to me that because the threat from such modules was theoretical—even though it was acknowledged that it was clearly feasible and would have a significant impact—there might be no need to prepare for it. Most risks are theoretical until they are very real, and the public then wonder why we were not prepared. I ask the Minister to specifically say what conversations he is having about the threat of cellular modules to the UK. Which Departments have been involved in those discussions?

I move on to our energy system—a key and particularly sensitive part of our infrastructure. We have seen how Vladimir Putin has used energy as a weapon against ordinary Ukrainian people, and he would be more than willing to do the same to British people as well. Without reliable energy, hospitals cannot function, communication systems begin to fail and supply chains break down. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, which I am a member of, will hold an evidence session on this very topic tomorrow. I have raised the issue with Defence Ministers before, but I believe that there are areas where we lack clarity on the legal position when it comes to hybrid attacks on our offshore infrastructure. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on what role the Cabinet Office can play in resolving that, as there seems to be an unclear boundary between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Defence in particular.

I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford about the importance of the devolved Administrations. Emergencies are experienced locally, as I highlighted at the beginning—they are managed locally, and resilience must be built locally. Too often, the UK’s national security infrastructure can feel as though it is concentrated within the M25 and shaped in central Government rather than fully embedded across all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is intended, but it does create a risk: if preparedness is genuinely to be a whole-of-society effort, it must extend beyond Whitehall.

In those areas, security, advice and expertise do not always flow consistently to devolved Administrations and local partners. At the same time, those Administrations do not deal with national security issues with the same regularity as central Government. That creates a potential blind spot—due not to a lack of commitment, but the structure of the system. It is exactly the kind of gap that hostile actors could seek to exploit. I hope the Minister will address what more can be done to ensure that security advice and capability are fully embedded across the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and how we can ensure resilience is genuinely UK-wide, rather than only inside central Government.

Finally, I turn to a topic that is becoming a bit of a hobby horse of mine: the requirement to trust the public when we are developing our national security and resilience. Preparedness cannot be delivered by the Government alone; it must involve the public.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is obviously well liked by me and this House, and we appreciate his honesty in his answers, although they may not have all the information we are seeking. I very gently remind him that the general public view these continued delays as obstructive. The Government’s goal must be to show that no one is beyond scrutiny and accountability, and any further delays or redactions will not help to reach that goal. Will he undertake to ensure that these delays end, the material is released and the general public are assured that we are all accountable for our mistakes and hat these lessons have to be and must be learned?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The Government are not trying to amend the terms or scope of the Humble Address—that is a factually incorrect statement. The hon. Member asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV’s recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I can confirm that those documents have been shared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. Constituents have contacted me regarding the overreach of Government bodies and their refusal to stay within their parameters, as displayed in the last few days by the legal judgment that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s claim of collusion in the Royal Ulster Constabulary exceeded the ombudsman’s legal powers. Today we have an urgent question, and constituents are again highlighting overreach and a refusal to be accountable to the public. Rebuilding trust is vital, and I believe the Minister is committed to doing that, but will he start the process of rebuilding trust in all aspects of public life when appointed individuals refuse to stay within their limits? What steps can be taken at every level of public service?

National Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I feel that fear, as I think we all do in this place. The hon. Gentleman has assiduously represented the concerns of Jewish communities in his constituency. I knew that he would send a letter, having given a commitment to do so, but I confess that it has not been put in front of me. I give him a guarantee that I will go back to my desk and look at his letter straight away.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his determination and the determination of his Government to protect all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I endorse his comments about the police, MI5 and MI6. We have individuals collectively doing the hard work to try to worm out the malcontents.

I have long bemoaned the lack of action against Chinese overreach, which sees spy work carried out against British nationals in this country. Some Hongkongers living in my constituency feel threatened daily by Chinese officials, whether it be from someone spying on them or following them. I have railed against the blatant antisemitism culminating in the stabbings in Golders Green. Along with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I stand alongside the Iranian Government in exile and Maryam Rajavi. The Iranians tell us that they feel threatened daily in this country for standing up for liberty and freedom in Iran. I have highlighted the sop to republicans that embraces republican glorification of terrorism, which led to car bombs in Northen Ireland just last month. This nation’s security is tied to our ability to act, so what will the Government do to secure our national interest and the safety of all our citizens in this great democracy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. He has a very long and proud record of standing against terrorism—he knows a lot about it from his experiences in Northern Ireland—and he is also right to pay tribute to those who serve in our police forces and our intelligence services, who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

The hon. Member is right to highlight a number of concerns. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously; he will have seen the measures that were announced in the King’s Speech yesterday, which will complement our existing legislative framework. However, I give him an assurance that if there is a requirement to do more—to add to our toolkit, to make sure we are best prepared to guard against the nature of the threats we face—we will not hesitate to act.