Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors.

I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche. Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do.

In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he was absolutely right to do so. I am also very happy to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to hearing her response. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about children in emergency refuge accommodation? I bring that to his attention simply because, in Northern Ireland, some 45% of children in emergency refuge are aged nought to five, which has a difficult impact on those formative years. More support is needed to provide a firm foundation for children during those most vulnerable years—it is not just the ladies; it is the children as well.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children.

I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.

However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?

Immigration Reforms

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this vital debate. I am well-known for believing in immigration for those who need it, those who have a desire to assimilate and those who wish to make a new life for their families and become part of the fabric of British life. I believe in asylum for the few who are persecuted for their faith. They should be given an opportunity to apply for immigration status and to work and raise their families.

I think of those who come to the Ulster hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital and the Belfast City hospital—those who have emigrated here, pay their national insurance and their tax here and keep the A&Es in all those hospitals going. That is really important. But I do not believe in an unrestricted flow of immigration for those who jump in a plastic or rubber boat in Calais and come across—economic migrants who are fit and well.

In the very short time I have, I want to make a point about the fishing fleet, which faces what I believe is unnecessary immigration reform. The new English language thresholds being introduced in 2026 create a huge barrier to bringing new crew into the industry from overseas. The phasing-out of the temporary shortage list for the end of 2026 means that we will no longer be able to bring in foreign crew to Northern Ireland to work on fishing vessels and will only be able to renew the visas of those who already work here. That means that in 12 months we stand to lose 70% of our workers, which will tie up close to 100% of our fleet.

I ask the Minister, who is a decent person and always replies very positively: can we have a meeting to discuss the bespoke visa system for fishing roles in the short and medium term? We need a mechanism to ensure that the industry does not fall during that period, while we do the necessary work to achieve more domestic recruitment. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have that meeting to prevent the implosion of the fishing industry due to the pressure on crews and vessels. Immigration is the lifeblood of our nation, but it must be controlled and in the national interest. We need to find that balance and find it soon—indeed, we need to find it before it is too late.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The flurry of interventions that we have had over the last three speeches has meant that we have gone two or three minutes over time. I will reduce the time available to the spokespeople for the three parties by a minute each, and ask each of them to take nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the absence of Members from certain parties from this Chamber. Those colleagues who we saw scuttling off to Reform have serious questions to answer about why, when given free rein in the Home Office, they failed to implement even the measures that this Labour Government have brought forward to address some of the loopholes that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) highlighted.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) described some of the characteristics of illegal migration. I have been to Calais and I have seen the drone footage gathered by the French police of the boats on the beaches and the camps set up by the traffickers who are bringing people over, and it is clear that we should be robust and extremely cautious. I have watched footage of people in those boats who, seeing the police approach, pick up children and throw them in the sea, knowing that the police will have to rescue them rather than stop the migrant boat. We should make no apology for taking robust action to address those concerns.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern—I think he probably does—that on many occasions, the French police seem to sit back and do nothing, and let the whole process go ahead? That poses the question whether this Labour Government’s agreement with the French Government means anything at all.

[David Simmonds]

I do not entirely share that view. I have seen the challenges that the French police face, with something like 1,000 members of their constabulary covering 10,000 km of coastline. The traffickers will sometimes send 50 or 100 boats to sea simultaneously, knowing that there is no way that the French police can possibly deter them. Each of those boats is worth €70,000 to €80,000-worth of revenue to their criminal enterprise, so they have a big incentive.

The Minister is here in an honourable tradition of Labour Governments taking robust action on our borders. The first immigration controls that our country ever had were introduced by the post-war Labour Government in response to concerns about the exit from empire. No recourse to public funds, the first time that asylum seekers were taken out of the standard benefits system and eligibility for council housing, was introduced by the Blair Government. The asylum dispersal system was introduced by the now Mayor of Greater Manchester when he was the Immigration Minister in those years.

On the Conservative side of the Chamber, we are broadly supportive of the measures based on the Danish model that are being brought forward by the Home Secretary. We remain very concerned, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire have highlighted, that many of those measures will still fall short and that our constituents’ concerns will remain.

In the spirit of a constructive approach, may I ask the Minister whether he has given any further consideration to the idea of an asylum visa, going beyond the simple prospect of safe and legal routes? If people wish to study, work, come to get married or live in the United Kingdom for any other reason, they have to apply for a visa, but we do not have any such measures in place for asylum seekers, and that is helping to drive the illegal traffic across the channel.

What discussions is the Minister having across Government about avoiding cost shunts, which are an increasing concern and a consequence of speeding up asylum decision making—in particular, the rapid rise in the cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities as asylum seekers get status and turn up at the town hall seeking help or are left destitute in local communities? What consideration will the Minister give to using protocol 16 of the European convention on human rights, since it is clear that UK tribunals go well beyond the provisions of that protocol in many cases, to ensure that we are not doing more than we should be doing?

Even with all those questions, I can assure the Minister that as the official Opposition we will be providing support in the Lobbies to ensure that those measures are implemented, even if we remain of the view that they should go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. This is not a criticism of yourself, but when the list of speakers is presented to the Chair for consideration, I understood that the protocol and rules of the House were that if those on the list intervened, they would go to the bottom of the list, while those whose names were on the list but had not intervened would be brought to the top. Can you clarify that that is the rule? That is how I and others understand it, but today, that rule was not followed.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

It is guidance, as opposed to a rule. With the exception of yourself, I did put to the end of the list those people who had intervened.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask the Clerk to check that, because my understanding is that that did not happen.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We must start the next debate.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Protest Policing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.

The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.

Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.

In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.

Immigration Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Some time ago, there was a debate on fisheries in this Chamber. The Minister who replied for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she would meet those of us who represent fishing villages. There is a need for visas for fishing crews, and it will not cost this country any money to have them here, as they contribute to it. Will the Minister please agree to a meeting?

[Alex Norris]

Whether it is with me or the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, I will ensure that a meeting on fisheries takes place.

Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Over this Labour Government’s term in office so far, we have spent a lot of time discussing and highlighting the evils of child abuse and the exploitation of women and girls, and there has been a lot of progress. The audit from Baroness Casey on grooming gangs made several recommendations that we have already put into motion; the reforms that we are making to taxi licensing and safety through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill are a key example.

However, I want to open today’s debate by talking about an issue that I have previously discussed with the Minister: the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is one of the key recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I approach this issue as someone who grew up in a small religious organisation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which IICSA recognised as having a serious problem with child sexual abuse. Last June, I stood here and highlighted my concerns that the Government’s proposals to introduce mandatory reporting in the Crime and Policing Bill have been significantly watered down from IICSA’s recommendations. I raised three issues: first, a lack of proper sanctions for non-compliance; secondly, the fact that the duty proposed applies only when someone receives a direct disclosure or witnesses abuse happening, and not when they have strong reasons to suspect it; and thirdly, loopholes in who is included; under the drafting, it is religious leaders who have “unsupervised” contact with children who come under the duty to report. I set out why that would allow most lay religious leaders to escape the duty, despite their holding enormous power and influence over their followers, using the particular example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

To begin with, I do have some good news. Just a few hours ago, the House of Lords approved a Government amendment to remove the word “unsupervised” from that definition of religious leaders. I want to thank the Minister, as well as her Lords counterpart, Lord Hanson, for listening to my lobbying on that front. That small change could make a real difference in protecting children from abuse in small religious organisations, but it will make the most difference only if we fix the other two issues, on which there has not been as much progress. I will not rehash my arguments in detail about why they are so critical.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He spoke on this issue some time ago, and made a very good case. I support him in the case that he is putting forward, and I want to give him an illustration. A 2013 report by the Northern Ireland Assembly revealed that small, unaffiliated groups, including those that use church or faith premises, had gaps in child protection and safeguarding, and might not be subject to credential checks. Does he agree with me—I believe he does—that legislation and guidance must be brought up to date and strengthened to ensure that smaller organisations do not fall through the gaps when it comes to ensuring proper safeguarding, so that we can increase protections for all children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He deserves to be congratulated on what he is doing tonight.

[Sam Carling]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It sounds like really helpful evidence and a really good example, and I will certainly go away and have a look at it.

I will not rehash the arguments I made in June, but I will say that IICSA was clear, having examined the issue in huge depth over many years, that both strong sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion were essential to create a duty that works, and its views have not changed. On Friday, two of the four IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary, pressing for the duty in the Crime and Policing Bill to be strengthened, so that it complies with their original recommendations.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

My sympathy goes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. These changes make a more secure border. They mean that we can check whether foreign criminals are coming into the country, and if they are, we can stop them, which makes us all safer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. As always, these problems have resulted because of a realisation that the small print does not really work. Many of my constituents take flights from Dublin because they can be more cost-effective, but the need to have a British passport can be incredibly cost-prohibitive. I am trying to be helpful and positive, so will the Minister and the Home Office give consideration to providing for an ID card that could be accessed online, on production of a birth certificate, and could be provided free of charge, or at a minimal cost?

[Mike Tapp]

We are modernising across the board. I will not make any new announcements in response to this urgent question, but the modernisation of the border includes digitisation, which will impact all of us positively.

Firearms Licensing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I approached you beforehand to tell you that, unfortunately, I cannot be here at the end of the debate because of a Select Committee, so I apologise to the Minister. That is a genuine shame, because this has been one of the most productive and thoughtful Westminster Hall petition debates I have had the pleasure to be involved in during my short time as a Member of Parliament. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the thoughtful way in which he opened the debate, covering a wide range of the issues we want to put before the Government.

I recognise that the debate comes in the context of some terrible tragedies, including one in Plymouth several years ago, as well as those in Skye and elsewhere. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to tight gun controls; in fact, I am very in favour of them, and one of the great strengths of our country, when we compare ourselves with other developed nations, is how we approach gun control. Our thoughts are absolutely with those affected by these tragedies, but I would be grateful if the Government at least provided an exemption for farmers, and possibly others, from the merging of section 1 and 2 licences, if it does go ahead.

Some 483 of my constituents signed the petition, and my North Northumberland constituency contains at least 800 farms, with probably well over 1,000 people working in or around agriculture. A number of them have contacted me about the consultation and the changes to firearms licensing that have been floated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a member of the BASC and Countryside Alliance Ireland, and I have had the opportunity to shoot on certain occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is little evidence that merging sections 1 and 2 will improve public safety? Indeed, it will do the contrary. For land managers, pest controllers, farmers and gamekeepers, a shotgun and a rifle are the tools of their jobs. If the Government pursue this policy in any way whatever, it will reduce the proven economic, employment, environmental and social benefits currently available to us.

[David Smith]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said earlier, we need must base our decisions on evidence. That is why I welcome the fact that there is a consultation, but it should be a genuine consultation on the facts of the matter.

Speaking of facts, I would expect every farmer in my constituency to own at least one shotgun, and that goes for all farmers and agricultural workers across the United Kingdom, of whom there may be up to 300,000. For all of them, as we have heard, shotguns are not a pastime but a necessary tool of their trade, much like a stethoscope, a power drill or a laptop. Farmers are responsible and sober shotgun owners because they are professionals. They know the damage that firearms can deliver, because they are required to use them so that we can eat our food.

There is no evidence base to suggest that it is farmers or agricultural workers whom we need to be worried about. Impositions on farmers will not make us safer; they will just make people worse farmers, because they will spend more time securing the tools they need in order to do their job than doing it. Fundamentally, if we want food, they need shotguns.

Incidentally, it should be no surprise that Northumbria police are the second worst police service in the country for firearm licensing processing times, because their remit covers thousands of farms. I have been assured by them that they are working on the situation, but there is a compelling case for the standardisation of firearms licensing, as we have heard, and I welcome that element being part of the proposed changes.

There are a number of ways to secure an exemption, if that was how we wanted to do it, and to differentiate farmers and agricultural workers—those who need these tools of the trade to do their jobs. That could, for instance, include retaining section 2 for pest control; that could be the categorisation. Or we could simply keep section 2 for those who are clearly working as farmers and agricultural workers. Police forces are clever enough to make a common-sense call on whether an individual is a farmer—usually the tractor gives it away. Alternatively, other policy events have shown the need for a central register of active farmers. Increasingly, we need to distinguish who our farmers are.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne]

I absolutely agree. We should be doing work to improve what we already have; we do not need a radical change. I question whether taking action that would overwhelm licensing units would actually enhance public safety. Can we seriously expect people to wait years for a licence? We run the risk of turbocharging the black-market demand for guns.

Shooting contributes billions of pounds to the UK and supports tens of thousands of jobs. It underpins conservation work, supports game meat production, sustains rural tourism and hospitality, and provides income in areas where alternative economic activity can be limited. Setting higher barriers to certification will lead to lower participation. The proposed change would be the most significant since 1988, and, according to some estimates, could mean a reduction in the number of licence holders of up to a third. That would be difficult to absorb for farm businesses that are already dealing with rising costs.

We should also bear in mind that the legal test of whether someone is fit to possess a firearm is the same, whether under section 1 or section 2. The background checks, character assessments and medical requirements are already rigorous, and recent reforms have aligned referee requirements. If the objective is public safety, as it should be, we should focus on improvements that would make the most difference—for example, introducing medical markers and consistent medical engagement. During a previous debate in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out a more effective approach to identifying vulnerable or potentially dangerous individuals.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, we already have strict medical controls. Those work, and that is because of the participation of shooting organisations and individuals. Perhaps when the Minister is summing up, she could consider taking a glimpse at what is done in Northern Ireland, as that might be a way forward.

[John Milne]

I think a trip to Northern Ireland is on offer to the Minister, and I am sure that she would have an excellent host in the hon. Gentleman.

Police Grant Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.

Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:

“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”

I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.

In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.

Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.

For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

Town and City Centre Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate and giving us all a chance to participate.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on town and city centre safety. Northern Ireland has several specific Government-led and multi-agency initiatives designed to improve safety in town and city centres. They are often co-ordinated through local partnerships, such as the PCSP—police and community safety partnership. However, as with most Departments, lack of funding in Northern Ireland has greatly hampered the progress in safety that they need. For example, CCTV —the sleeping policeman, as I call it—in Newtownards and Bangor is not fit for purpose. It needs upgrading: the screen and film is very grainy, so it is hard to ascertain who is on it. The local Police Service of Northern Ireland chief superintendent is crying out for a system that can be used as evidence for crimes, but more importantly one that can prevent crimes. The local PCSP have acknowledged the need, and yet the council’s hands are ostensibly tied, having struck the local rate.

We then go up the ladder to the Minister for Justice.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the potential for a win-win here? Many people complain about high street shops being derelict and empty, but if we can encourage people to live adjacent to or above retail units, we can increase footfall and protect people, provided the police are present, particularly in the evening time.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is not just about CCTV in the city centre, but in the shops as well. The Minister and the Department have highlighted that their funding does not stretch. I could argue that the Minister does not prioritise in the way that I would like, but that does not change the facts. The PSNI has indicated that if it had the system, it would monitor it. In other words, if the system is in place, the PSNI will look after it, so there is an advantage to doing that.

I have one quick story— I am conscious of time and want to give others the chance to participate. My son worked in a shop in Newtownards—he does not work there any more. One night, a guy came in to rob the till and steal some drink. He threatened my son with a knife, so my son stepped back, which was the right thing to do—there is no sense in being a hero when it comes to some maniac with a knife. The CCTV in the shop was the reason they were able to catch them, so it is just not about CCTV in the street, but the CCTV in the constituency shops as well.

The rate of crime in Newtownards is 33.6 crimes per 1,000 people compared with 36 elsewhere. The PSNI find themselves going from business to business to ask for camera evidence, and even to ask residents for Ring doorbell footage. That is another way of catching those who are up to no good, and is something we need to focus on.