Facial Recognition and the Biometrics Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on presenting the case very well. We spoke before the debate started and found we were on the same page. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. Our comments are made with a genuine interest in arguing the case and hopefully to help the Government see the correct way of moving forward. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West for the hard work that he and other members of the Science and Technology Committee undertake. It is painstaking work—very technical and detailed. If I was wearing a hat I would take my hat off to them for what they have done.

The issue of facial recognition is a complex matter. Of course, anyone who watches American crime dramas—I am one of those people who watches CSI and all the others from about 11 o’clock until 12 midnight before going to bed—will think it is a useful tool for identifying terrorist suspects, which can be right, but Hollywood life and real life are two very different things, and black and white is difficult to have when we consider people’s right to privacy and how far we can have a security site without a Big Brother state. I am always very conscious of that Big Brother state.

I thank the Library for the background information. I read in the paper this morning of a suspect in China who was wanted in relation to the murder of his mother. He had been missing for two to three years, but facial recognition was installed at the airport and they caught him. That is one of the good things that can happen—those who thought they would get away with a crime are made accountable.

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. As hon. Members know, I am very interested in such issues. China has apprehended a fugitive and is making him accountable for his crime, but at the same time China uses facial recognition to fence in villagers in the far west of China. That is a very clear illustration of how that technology can be used to the detriment of human rights and religious minorities in a country that, let us be honest, is guilty of many human rights abuses. I am very concerned at how China can use facial recognition to its advantage to suppress human rights and to suppress people’s right to practise their religion in the way that they would like.

On accuracy and bias, some of the information illustrates clearly that errors for low-resolution surveillance footage can exceed 10%, so there is still a question mark over the validity of the process. If as many as 10% of people are found not to be the right person, I question the validity of the process.

We cannot deny or ignore the concerns of Elizabeth Denham, the Information Commissioner. She raised concerns about facial recognition technology and law enforcement in her blog:

“There is a lack of transparency about its use and there is a real risk that the public safety benefits derived from the use of FRT will not be gained if public trust is not addressed.”

I refer to the questions that the hon. Member for Bristol North West asked, and I suspect others will, in relation to the need for public trust that the system will not be abused or used detrimentally against people. People feel strongly about this matter. How does the use of FRT comply with the law? How effective and accurate is the technology? How do forces guard against bias? What protections are there for people that are of no interest to the police? How do the systems guard against false positives and their negative impact? That is clearly an issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) tabled a parliamentary question on 24 May 2018—

“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the facial recognition software that law enforcement bodies use is accurate.”

It clearly tells us that there are concerns across all four regions of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, obviously, Wales.

The background is clear. The courts ruled in the 2012 RMC case that it was unlawful to hold custody images without making a distinction between those who were convicted and those who were not. In response, the Home Office has introduced a system to allow unconvicted individuals to request the deletion of their images. We understand the system and that is all great, but it is an opt-out scenario; the individual must ask for the deletion of their image. I am not sure how many people would think of doing so; I suspect it would be the last thing on many people’s mind, with their busy lives. I know I probably would not think of doing so. I would not know that my images have been stored away for a rainy day to be pulled out, even though I am completely innocent. The presumption, “You may well do something someday” is not enough of a reason to hold on to these things. An arrest must be made for fingerprints to be taken and stored, and yet no arrest is needed for images of a person in the background of an event to be taken and perpetually stored by successive Governments—not just this Government, but every Government that comes after, if the legislation is in place.

The excuse of cost is a weighty consideration, and so is the protection of personal identification. I say this honestly: because of my age I have lived through the height of the troubles, when cars were searched, ID was a must and the battle against terrorists was daily. I lived with that, not just as an elected representative, but as a former member of the part-time army—the Territorials and the Ulster Defence Regiment. We seem to be heading that way again. I could understand it if the Government were to make it known that they believed that retaining this process would save lives—I would understand the thinking behind what they are trying to do—but that if necessary, there would be a mechanism to have the information removed. I could understand it if there was that level of transparency. However, to say that the reason is that there is not enough money to do an IT upgrade just does not wash with me, and I suspect it does not wash with others taking part in today’s debate.

I agree with the Science and Technology Committee report, “Biometrics strategy and forensic services”, published on 25 May 2018, which states:

“The Government must ensure that its planned IT upgrade…is delivered without delay…to introduce a fully automatic image deletion system for those who are not convicted. If there is any delay in introducing such a system, the Government should move to introduce a manually-processed comprehensive deletion system as a matter of urgency.”

That would be my request to the Minister. We have great respect for the Minister; that goes without saying, but we are very concerned about what is proposed, or could possibly happen, and we have to record those concerns.

I further agree that facial image recognition provides a powerful evolving technology, which could significantly help policing. I am all for that, but everyone must be clear about what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what is held and for what purpose. That underlines my point that if it is for the sake of security, then say it and we can debate the merits of the case. If that is the purpose, let us debate it honestly, truthfully and in an informed way, to ensure that all concerns are taken on board.

I am all for targeting those on a watchlist or those affiliated with those on a watchlist, as in previous examples of terrorism on the mainland and back home as well, but let us be clear that it is happening, and let us be clear that those who take umbrage against it have the information that they need to ensure that their images are not stored even though they have not committed a crime and are not a person of interest. I am conscious of the need to protect human rights, protect privacy and protect those who are innocent, although I understand the reasons for the process.

In conclusion, I look to you, Minister, as I always do. We must have a chance to debate these issues and make an informed decision about the strategy and the justification for it. I look forward to the report’s coming before us, but I must record my concerns.

Retail Crime

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on bringing the issue to this Chamber for consideration. I said to him yesterday in a conversation that there are very few debates that he brings to Westminster Hall that I do not have an interest in, wish to participate in or support him on. It is pleasing to see the Minister in her place. She is not afraid of hard issues, and always responds positively and helpfully—we look forward to her response. She is amenable and approachable, and is prepared to give the answers to the hard questions that we ask.

As the Minister will know, policing is devolved in Northern Ireland. None the less, the issues that other Members have referred to and will refer to after my speech, are replicated across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the chance to participate in this debate.

I am pleased to represent Strangford in this Chamber; it is a name that I use in every speech I make. I am also pleased that the main town in my constituency, Newtownards, has bucked the trend: we have a thriving high street. We have boutique shops, specialist shops, branded shops and coffee shops—if you need it, we’ve got it. If hon. Members have not visited Newtownards—I know the right hon. Gentleman has—I encourage them to do so.

I am not as proud to say that we have had robberies and threatening behaviour, although it is extremely limited. However, any act of violence or theft is one too many. I have three sons, two of whom have worked in shops and are now managers. During the time that they have worked in shops, they have experienced the violence that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman referred to people with drug and alcohol addictions, who sometimes try to steal from shops. In the violence that takes place, shop staff feel threatened. From my sons, I know that there have been occasions when staff have been taken off work. The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) mentioned that sometimes staff are traumatised and are on sick leave for a long time. Those things happen, but it is not what someone expects when they sign up for a nine-to-five job or whatever shift they are on. The repercussions are great.

They have introduced CCTV in most of the shops in Newtownards. People who have carried out robberies, caused damage and acted violently or threateningly in shops have been made accountable for their actions. One thing that we should perhaps look at—the Minister might say this in her response—is encouraging shopkeepers to install CCTV in their properties. It seems to be a norm now, and it helps when thefts take place.

I was so disheartened to learn of the behaviour that some shopkeepers and workers have to put up with. The report provided by USDAW during Respect for Shopworkers Week gives shocking statistics. There have been instances of violence and threats, and it was made abundantly clear that abuse against shop workers remains a major problem on the frontline of retail. Other hon. Members have referred to it, and I could relate similar stories from my constituency.

Six out of 10 shop workers have experienced verbal abuse. Some 37% have been threatened by a customer, and 230 are assaulted every day. The number of incidents is in line with last year, but remains higher than two years ago. Two thirds of UK retail workers have been exposed to violence or aggression in the workplace. Earlier in the year, the British Retail Consortium reported a doubling of violence against retail staff in its annual retail crime survey. That is why this debate is so important, and why we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it forward.

I am in complete agreement with the general secretary of USDAW, who said:

“While there are many factors behind retail crime…severe cuts in police funding and the loss of over 20,000 police officers”

do not help. I am beyond alarmed to learn that some chief constables have said their officers can no longer attend incidents of thefts from shops, and that they are asking shop workers to detain shoplifters. We see stories on TV in which shop workers take it upon themselves to detain a person who is trying to rob a shop—I watched such a story on TV the other night. The level of courage of shopkeepers is to be commended, but that is not what they should be doing, so we have to look at that.

In my constituency, I met the local chief superintendent to discuss the fact that the Police Service of Northern Ireland would no longer investigate drive-offs at petrol stations. I am not sure how good other Members’ knowledge of such incidents is, but unfortunately in Northern Ireland and in my constituency, statistics out this week show a 2% rise in drive-offs.

The meeting that we had with the Chief Constable, I think last October, involved both garage owners and the retail association. We feel that it is not the responsibility of the garage owner to take action to retrieve money from drive-offs. That is a straight theft issue and should be the responsibility of the police, or the PSNI as it is in Northern Ireland. It is not the responsibility of garage owners to source the person’s address through the Driver and Vehicle Agency, and approach them and ask them to pay; yet only when they refuse to pay does it become the job of the PSNI to investigate. Such a process is hardly logical.

If someone walks out of Tesco, which featured on TV the other night, and drive away, having forgotten to pay for their week’s shopping, it is considered a theft right away. However, if someone drives away from a petrol station, it is presumed to be forgetfulness. We are now asking garage owners to become detectives and track down people who have driven away with perhaps £60-worth of petrol or diesel. Clearly, the support is not there. To be fair to the police, I do not believe that it is because they are too lazy; it is because they are stretched thin. The police are so drastically underfunded and understaffed that they must prioritise every crime. Unfortunately, that leaves victims of crime having to go beyond what should be expected of them.

The right hon. Member for Delyn referred to ATMs. In Northern Ireland, we have had some of the most incredible thefts of ATMs. I am not sure whether it has been at the same level on the mainland. To give an example, one such theft happened just last weekend before I came over here. Thieves in these cases seem to pick ATMs where there is a JCB or digger not too far away building houses—that is what happened at the weekend. The thieves stole a big digger from the local building site and ripped the ATM out of the wall, which took them four minutes and 10 seconds. They had a car sitting ready. This is the story, and it was all caught on CCTV, so it is factually correct. They grabbed the ATM with the digger. The roof of the car was removed, and the ATM was placed in the back seat. Absurdly, this small car with no roof had a big ATM sitting in it, and was driven down the road. It took four minutes and 10 seconds.

Such crimes are hard for the police to respond to, given the timescale. However, there are other ways of doing so. May I make a suggestion to the Minister, as we were talking the other day about how to address such issues? All ATMs across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have a movement device inside them. As soon as it moves, the police will know where the ATM is going and can track it.

I understand that the tracking is done by helicopters. However, I also understand that we have two helicopters in Northern Ireland that the police can access. I suggest that the police in Northern Ireland do that, and we should do the same here on the mainland. I watch “Police Interceptors” on the TV—that may show how sad I am, but I always find it quite interesting. The police helicopters are able to source and follow the person who is getting away. For me, that is a better way of doing things. There are other ways to address the theft of ATMs, the threat to staff and so on, and we should explore them.

We simply need more help on the ground from the police. People are less likely to smash and grab if they think that there may be police on the beat, as opposed to being certain that they can run and not be caught. It is my belief that action is needed to help to protect staff. That must come in the form of legislation that provides for harsher penalties. Others have referred to the fact that penalties must deter. At the moment, with cautions and let-offs, the system seems not to work in the way that it should.

For those caught stealing or being abusive, and for those who assault workers, the message must be clear: such behaviour cannot and will not be tolerated. Instead of saying to people, “You can thump me once or twice before it actually matters,” it should matter the first time that someone is verbally abusive. Assault is verbal abuse, not just physical abuse.

These people are going about their daily business, and that is why we are here, on behalf of the shop workers and staff who do not deserve to be intimidated in any way. Everyone, no matter what their job or how much they get paid, deserves to be respected and to go to their place of work, leave when their paid hours are done and not be subjected to abuse in between.

We can be sure that if I were verbally abusive to my staff—I certainly am not, for the record—it would be reported to the police and in the newspapers the next week. My staff would not let me off with that anyway, because they are capable of looking after themselves; I get told off many times by them. Why is it less important for employees of the local Russell’s essentials shop to be assured of support and freedom from abuse? It is not.

I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so in conclusion, we have not sent the right message thus far. We need to change the narrative and be clear that people have the right to work free from abuse, and we will support them in that right. That is what the right hon. Member for Delyn said, what I am saying, what other hon. Members have said and will say, and what the shadow Minister and the Minister will say as well. People have the right to support from the PSNI or the police on the UK mainland when someone commits a crime, and we will ensure that people’s right of access to the police is protected. No one should ever dread going to work because of abuse while we, by omission, are saying that it is acceptable. It is not and never will be, and that must be made clear today.

UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We are considering the matter of visas for non-European economic area citizens working in the UK fishing industry—sadly, not for the first time. In fact, I last brought this matter before the House on 11 July. Others have led Adjournment debates on the same topic on different occasions. It has been raised on multiple occasions at Home Office questions, most recently by me. Sadly, now, here at the beginning of April, we are no further forward.

I will not rehearse the arguments around the necessity for our fishing skippers to be able to employ crew from outside the European Union or the EEA. I suspect that that has been done to death. If we were going to win the argument by raising the issues, we would have won it long ago.

Tonight, I will gently remind the Minister of a couple of things that she told the House in July. I invite her, when she speaks, to give us something of a progress report. I will then consider the content of the Migration Advisory Committee report from September of last year which, according to the Minister when I last raised this with her, is now the basis on which the Government seek to resist the fairly sensible and, I would have thought, uncontroversial measures that we seek to have introduced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his fortitude in this issue. The Minister, too, knows the reasons why we are discussing it. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that highly skilled fishermen from the Philippines, for example, and other countries must have streamlined access to this incredibly dangerous profession? Does he agree that the future of our fishing sector depends on it?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his assiduous attendance at these debates and at other meetings but for his use of the term “highly skilled” fishing crews. Those who go to sea to bring the fish home to put on our plates are highly skilled. The root of the problem is in essence one of attitude, which somehow classes those brave, hard-working men as low skilled. Yes, I agree with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

If the right hon. Gentleman exercises some patience, I am coming to a number of points that I would like to make.

It is crucial that the House reflects on the fact that the White Paper published in December was the start of a year-long engagement across different regions of the United Kingdom and different sectors of industry. To date, there have already been in excess of 45 engagement events or roundtables, and we have taken evidence from 650 different organisations or individuals in the first three months of this year alone. That process will continue over the course of this year, because I am conscious that we are introducing a future immigration system that will have to reflect the realities of a post-Brexit Britain and that will have to be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to address the needs of an economy that undoubtedly will change in future. It is important that we listen to the concerns raised by industry and hon. Members and get it right.

[Jim Shannon]

I remind the Minister of the evidence from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation that we left with her when I and other hon. Members went to speak to her. The organisation advertised across the whole of Europe, and of the 140 people who replied only five actually came forward. That is an indication that across Europe we cannot get the people to do the jobs and so, if I can use a fishing term, we have to cast our net wider to get the right people for the job. Those are the facts of the case.

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, we have also asked the MAC to look at a revision of the shortage occupation list. He will know that we have suggested the introduction of a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland, as well as consulting on one for Wales, in addition to the separate list that we already hold for Scotland.

We need to be mindful that tying workers to particular employers or sectors can increase the risk of exploitation. I am sure hon. Members will be aware that recently four United Nations rapporteurs wrote to the Irish Government to point out that their scheme, which has been put in place in Ireland to bring in non-EU workers to work in the fishing industry there, is giving rise to forced labour and exploitation on Irish fishing vessels. There is evidence that laws on minimum wage, maximum hours and safety —the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is laughing as I say this—have been widely flouted.

Gender Pay Gap

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! A sentence, please. Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

One sentence, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister had any discussions with the devolved regions about the implementation of reviews throughout the public and private sectors to get a clearer picture of how we stand?

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes, of course. We are very keen to work with all our colleagues throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that businesses and employers are treating their female staff fairly, regardless of where they happen to be in the United Kingdom.

Policing: Somerset

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

For many reasons, I am pleased to have secured this debate, even though some of what I have to say may be distressing to hear because crime, unfortunately, knows no boundaries.

It will come as no surprise that policing in Somerset is a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and to hundreds of thousands of others across the county. To an outsider, Somerset conjures up the image of a peaceful backwater, full of cider orchards and friendly folk with old-fashioned values. Unfortunately, as in so many other parts of our nation, life is no longer like that. Rather alarmingly, the National Crime Agency says that there are 90 organised crime groups operating in the Avon and Somerset area. It is no longer a few light-fingered thieves we have to worry about; it is big-time crooks. Organised crime in the United Kingdom costs £37 billion every year—that is almost as much as the Brexit divorce bill to Brussels. Organised crime causes more deaths than terrorism, wars and natural disasters put together, and there are 90 organised crime groups in my county alone. Frankly, it does not bear thinking about.

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has just named Bristol the cocaine capital of Europe. That is not an accolade that any of us locally are proud of. The city has shot up the international cocaine leader board. Twelve months ago, Bristol was No. 5 in the charts; now it is No. 1. There is widespread drug misuse in so many corners of Somerset, which the police confess is way beyond their capacity to handle, let alone solve. Users frequently get off with a caution if they are caught at all. Dealers have to be major players to warrant anything approaching a crackdown. The force simply does not have the manpower to do anything other than cherry-pick at a huge, disastrous and growing problem.

Just a fortnight ago, the Avon and Somerset chief constable admitted that his force was “losing the war” against drugs. That is a very scary public statement to make. I have enormous respect for the foot soldiers of our overworked police force. I have watched them do their jobs in difficult circumstances. I have joined them in civvies on patrol and see them risk life and limb in action. The men and women in the ranks perform miracles, and they defy the odds, but I fear the odds are stacked against them. They are not always well led, and they suffer from the slings and arrows of erratic decision making by the office of the police and crime commissioner.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service will probably know that I have had several bitter spats with the Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner, Mrs Sue Mountstevens, who has the uncanny knack of opening her mouth and inserting both feet into it—a remarkable achievement. On her first day on the job, she fired the chief constable. A few months later, she fired his successor—the very candidate she had hand-picked as a replacement. The present chief constable must consider himself lucky to have survived a couple of years.

Nobody can relax when the commissioner starts talking. Last week, she offered the benefit of her wisdom on the subject of drug smuggling—“Don’t risk Dover,” she told her audience, “because you might easily get caught.” She added that if anybody was smuggling drugs, her personal recommendation was somewhere safer, like Lyme Regis in Dorset. I am sure that Members representing Dorset are pleased.

The local town exploded with justifiable anger. They call Lyme Regis the pearl of the Jurassic coast, which it is, but Mrs Mountstevens has now renamed it Dope-on-Sea. Bang go her chances of getting a glittering career with the Lyme Regis tourist board. Mrs Mountstevens used to run the famous Mountstevens family bakery. I suspect that it will not come as a great surprise to the Minister that the bakery went bust when she was running it. Last week, after the Lyme Regis booboo, she baked an incredible humble pie and was forced to eat the lot.

Frankly, anyone would find it a bit of a challenge trying to run an effective police force with Sue Mountstevens permanently peering over their shoulder, especially when the arithmetic of crime is rising against her. Everything seems to be going up. Knife crime is up 52% in a single year. That amounts to 634 additional crimes in Avon and Somerset in which knives were used. The police response was to organise Operation Spectre, a campaign aimed at educating young people, targeting hotspots and putting out knife surrender bins. That may sound like the sort of thing that officers should be doing all the time, but Operation Spectre lasted for only seven days, which is nothing like enough to make a difference.

I do not believe that these major problems can be tackled with tokenism. Serious crime demands serious answers. Avon and Somerset police and its commissioner have been trumpeting Operation Remedy, which claims to make 100 extra officers available to fight drug dealers. It certainly looks like the first significant increase in manpower in Somerset for several years and will be paid for by a £24 average council tax rise, but I doubt whether Operation Remedy can ever provide an effective remedy, because it only lasts for three months. The chief constable promised that it would make a “big splash”. Really? Operation Remedy comes to an end in June. Unfortunately, as we all know, whether one is a northern or a southern MP, drug barons never stop.

We should remember that the operation is being paid for entirely out of a hefty hike in council tax. The Somerset County Council police panel has given Mrs Mountstevens a hard time, demanding justification for the spending. It wants to ensure that it is not a waste of money, and I think it has very good reason to be cautious.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

With great pleasure.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand and he will understand where I am coming from. A great benefit of community policing in my constituency, and perhaps in his as well, is having police officers in the community—in the estates, on the streets and in the rural communities—bringing in the intelligence on drugs and other things across the constituency. Does he think that the police force in his constituency could do more of that? If so, what would he like the Minister to do to ensure that it happens?

Far-right Violence and Online Extremism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

First, in the Metropolitan police, there are counter-terrorism security advisers who will come out to any mosque, or any place, to help to advise on what steps can be taken to do that. The places of worship scheme, which has received £2.4 million over the past three years, can be applied for. The latest round was not fully subscribed. We will do all we can to advertise it and encourage it. Indeed, the Home Secretary and I have looked at different ways to remove the barriers to people applying to that scheme to make it as easy and as straightforward as possible. We hope to improve that even more. Like my right hon. Friend, I have some very small mosques in my constituency. They are just as vulnerable as some of the very big ones. We must make sure that protective security applies to us all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I add the DUP’s sympathies to all those who were killed and injured in New Zealand in that very vicious terrorist attack? Northern Ireland has experienced the unadulterated evil of people slaughtering worshippers in what should be a safe place—for example, in Gospel Hall in Darkley on 20 November 1983. In the face of evil, it is time for good people to stand with those who have been attacked. So can the Minister confirm what support has been offered to New Zealand in relation to policing, to forensic expertise and to counselling support for those victims who have lost loved ones?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend knows all too well the cost of terrorism and indeed, in the society in which he lives, the cost of division. We have offered to the New Zealand authorities any help they wish to have, either in the intelligence or the police space, and we will continue to do that, as we will with the Netherlands authorities following the attack today. Ultimately, we must make sure that, when it comes to saying what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, linking violence and politics is not acceptable. That is a good starting point. We must make it very clear across our political discourse that the first point is that that is never acceptable—it is never acceptable to invoke that and to say that people should be lynched. We should never ever invoke violence in the same breath as politics.

Shamima Begum and Other Cases

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As a father and grandfather, my heart aches for any mother who loses a child, but that does not change my support for the Home Office’s decision, just as it does not change the heartache and loss for every victim of ISIS terrorism, including children across the world and especially here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the safety of our citizens must always be the priority of the Home Secretary?

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the loss of any child, whether the child of a terrorist or any other child. All children, especially babies, are innocent in every way, and such a loss is a tragedy for us all. Everyone would have sympathy with that.

As the hon. Gentleman says, our duty is to prevent further loss of innocent life, including of children in Britain. The Home Office’s paramount responsibility is to keep this country safe.

International Women’s Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am thankful to be able to make a contribution. I was raised by a wonderfully strong and loving mother, and I married an equally strong wife. I also have two granddaughters, and I am conscious that my mother’s strength of character and my wife’s compassion will make them very successful in their lives to come.

My mother is 87 years of age and 4 foot 10, and she laboured beside my 6-foot father, stride for stride, all their lives. She was determined not by her tiny frame, but by her heart of a lion. No task was ever too much for mum, and I like to think that some of her grit and determination has come through to me and the rest of the family. My parliamentary aide often uses a wee statement that reminds me of a comment by Margaret Thatcher: “If you want something talked about, let a man do it, but if you want something done, give it to a woman.” I am ever mindful of the fact that there are exceptions to that, and I hope that I am one.

Today, I want to mention three people of Ulster extraction who played a big role in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and across the world. The first is Cecil Frances Humphreys, a famous hymn writer. In the 1840s she wrote many compositions that appeared in the Church of Ireland hymnals. She married William Alexander, who became the Bishop of Derry and the Archbishop of Armagh. Many of her hymns are still important to us. “All Things Bright and Beautiful”, “There Is a Green Hill Far Away” and “Once in Royal David’s City”, to mention just three, remain popular across the world.

Isabella Tod was born in Edinburgh, but she spent most of her life in Belfast. She became Ulster’s pre-eminent advocate of votes for women and women’s education. She campaigned for changes in the law that resulted in the Married Women’s Property Act 1882. She secured the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and she championed the right of women to higher education. She also persuaded the Queen’s University of Ireland to allow girls to take examinations and be awarded certificates. What a wonderful legacy she has left behind.

Sarah Leech, the daughter of a linen weaver, was born in Raphoe, in County Donegal, into the Ulster Scots tradition. Her staunch Unionism was evidenced by her poems. Sarah’s weaver poetry is genuinely impressive, and I greatly appreciate her impact on Ulster Scots poetry even to this generation and beyond.

I read a tremendous article on family life among the Ulster Scots settlers in America—it is nice to have a lady from the United States with us in the Gallery—that praised the role of women. That is something that my wife would agree with. Among those settlers, men were the warriors and women were the workers.

For generations those men had to be warriors in the old countries of Scotland, England and Ireland, and the pattern did not change just because they migrated to America. In any society where the men go off to war, the women do much more labour at home. That was true for those Ulster Scots, too. In those families, the women laboured in the fields right beside their husbands—the women of Ulster and this United Kingdom remain the same.

I join everyone who has spoken in this debate in celebrating the achievements of women who work hard in their occupation, raise their family, reach the top of their field—as everyone who has spoken in this debate has done—and raise the next generation to stop seeing gender and simply judge on ability.

Families of Commonwealth Soldiers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. Let me begin by paying tribute to all the men and women who serve in our armed forces. They put their lives on the line to protect ours and those of millions of people around the world.

My constituency is home to Fort George, the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, and 500 soldiers. To them, and each and every one of the others, we owe a debt of gratitude for their service. That, of course, includes more than 6,000 men and women serving in the armed forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, a number that is set to increase as the Army embarks on yet more recruitment campaigns across the Commonwealth.

In response to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Defence Secretary has said:

“We expect up to 1,350 Commonwealth citizens to join our armed forces next year.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 3.]

Like any other soldiers, sailors and aircrew, they will put their lives on the line in our service, and they will do so under the direction of this Government’s Ministry of Defence. Reflected in their service is the sacrifice also made by their families, who will find themselves affected. They are sometimes uprooted, and often left with the anxiety of knowing that their loved ones are doing a difficult and dangerous job.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate; I have always wanted to say that right, and I have had the luck to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been very outspoken and diligent in taking this matter forward. Does he agree that we have a duty of care to those who fight for Queen and country in whatever form that takes, that that extends to the family of service personnel and that it is outrageous that it is not currently discharged as well as he and I would expect?

[Drew Hendry]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a great point. As I was going on to say, the sacrifice is also made by the families. They have the anxiety of their loved ones doing a difficult and dangerous job, yet their sacrifices often go untold.

As the Army Families Federation has said,

“Commonwealth members of our Armed Forces make up a significant and vital part of the UK’s Defence capability and, as a nation, we ask them to make significant sacrifices to do so.”

Is it right that the sacrifices they make in undertaking the duty of service should mean being kept apart from their families? No, it is simply not right; yet it is continually happening. The current immigration rules are keeping Commonwealth soldiers apart from their families. The report from the AFF reads:

“The UK recruits soldiers from across the Commonwealth to serve in our Armed Forces. There are currently over 6,000 personnel serving in the UK Armed Forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles.

Since December 2013, those who leave their country of origin to serve our nation are subjected to the Government’s minimum income requirements if they wish to bring their immediate family with them.

This requirement means that due to military pay scales, a Commonwealth soldier with a spouse and two children can end up waiting up to six years before they earn over the £24,800 needed for their family to join them.

It cannot be right that those who have signed up to defend our nation by serving in the Armed Forces are doing so at the expense of their family life. The current situation can result in personnel making the heart-breaking decision of choosing which child they bring with them to the UK and which they leave behind until their income has increased. The MIT should be removed as a barrier from those who serve in the Armed Forces.”

Louise Simpson, chair of the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster, has said:

“We struggle to engage with recruiters to make sure that soldiers and service personnel understand the financial commitment that they have when coming to the UK particularly around the cost of visas and the minimum income requirements. There was a lot of press…about soldiers not understanding that they may not be able to bring their children in for almost 4 years because they are not earning the right amount of money. As an organisation, we feel that is immoral”.

She is right; that is immoral. This Government must accept that fact.

[Drew Hendry]

I absolutely and fundamentally agree. It is a disgrace that people are being asked to put themselves on the line and at risk without qualifying for the same conditions as others enjoy just because they were born in one of the nations of the UK.

In 2011 the Government announced plans to introduce a new policy on family migration. One of the major changes was to make the level of income threshold

“higher than that of the safety net of income support.”

Subsequently, the armed forces immigration rules introduced in the first quarter of 2013 closely aligned themselves to the rules for non-military and introduced the requirement for a soldier with one child to be earning at least £22,400 and a further £2,400 for each additional child. It could be many years before a recruit earns the salary needed to meet the threshold.

In 2011, the Government enshrined the armed forces covenant in statute. The Army Families Federation and the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster group have urged the Government to consider the principles of the covenant with regard to the family needs of Commonwealth personnel. Commonwealth recruits find it very difficult to hold down a second job, due to their irregular hours. They also stand alone as a cohort within the armed forces, in that they are forcibly separated from their immediate dependants on recruitment, unlike their domestic peers.

In August 2014, the Prime Minister announced the introduction of a family test to be applied by Departments when devising policy. The guidance and documentation for the test state:

“Strong and stable families, in all their forms, play an important role in our society. Families have a major impact on the life chances of individuals and strong family relationships are recognised as an important component of individual, community and national wellbeing.”

While we think about those words, let us consider the case study of an Army private who enlisted in 2013, just prior to the new rules coming into effect. He had not even had the chance to bring his family to the UK, as he had not finished training. He has two children and a wife back home in Ghana, and he has been separated from them for six years. He is now earning enough to bring his wife and one of his children to the UK, but it will be another two to three years before he can bring his other child here. He is faced with the agonising decision of choosing which child should join him and his wife in the UK. How can that be right?

The family test sets out a number of questions that Departments should apply when devising policies that risk affecting families. Those questions include:

“What impacts will the policy have on all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities?”

The previous Chief of the Defence Staff commented in the Ministry of Defence’s 2016 strategy that our personnel could fully carry out their defence tasks only if they had the support of their families and the confidence that their loved ones would be able to access the right support when required.

In September 2017, a soldier who had been refused a visa for the UK as a result of the minimum income threshold appealed, with the assistance of the Army Families Federation, on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The judge said that the appeal was successful in the light of the compassionate circumstances of the case, particularly noting that the sponsor had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to bring his family to the UK when he signed up to the armed forces in 2017. He said:

“I find that it is not in the public interest to exclude the appellant”.

It is time to amend the existing immigration rules on the minimum income threshold to exempt the families of serving armed forces personnel.

However, the difficulties do not end there. My constituent, Denis Omondi, is a serving soldier in the British Army who, in 2011, found out that he was the father of a little girl in Kenya. He had previously been unaware of his daughter’s existence, but he then sprang into action, meeting and visiting his daughter as often as he could. There was an instant connection between them, and they are indeed a dad and daughter, so when his daughter’s birth mother said that she could no longer look after her, Denis became Ann’s sole custodian. He pays for her education and living costs in Kenya and is proudly responsible for her care and wellbeing. Understandably, he takes the role of being her dad very seriously. He also takes his job very seriously. He is a British citizen and a serving soldier in 3 Scots, Black Watch, stationed at Fort George, where he has loyally served, undertaking tours in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cyprus. Despite the demands of his work, he has used every opportunity to visit and spend time with Ann in Kenya.

With his wife battling cancer and as a dad missing his daughter, Denis set about applying for a visa to bring her to live with them in the highlands. To him, it was simply the most natural thing for them finally to be together as a family. Imagine his heartache when he opened the letter from the Home Office telling him that Ann’s visa application had been rejected. The reason given was that the Home Office considered that this soldier, committed to serving in the British Army, had not spent enough time with Ann to prove the relationship. That happened despite him providing evidence of visits, photos and calls with Ann, correspondence with teachers and care providers and much more. Denis and his wife were in disbelief at the news, and Ann was devastated to be kept apart from her family.

I could not believe it when I heard about their plight so, in this very Chamber, I pleaded with the Prime Minister to right the wrong. She promised that the Home Secretary would investigate personally, and he readily nodded his agreement. I thought that common sense and common decency would prevail, but that has not yet been the case. Since then, the anxiety, cost and pressure has built up on the Omondi family. A promise to look again eventually came, but only after relentless chasing. Confusion and chaos at the Home Office meant that I had to raise the case again, this time with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Incidentally, I thank the Immigration Minister for the apology for saying that Dennis, Shelagh and myself had told lies about the situation with the mislaid paperwork and about the fact that no conversations with the Omondis had come from the Home Office. It has been said to me in writing that the Home Office apologises for that, and I am grateful, but I would rather that it got on with sorting the situation out for the Omondis. Here we are: a Prime Minister, two Secretaries of State, a heartbroken family and still no answer on whether this serving soldier will be reunited with his only daughter.

I found out today that so distrusting is the Home Office that it has arranged with a South African agency to call Ann and her birth mother to check out the detailed information supplied by the Omondis. I cannot believe that we would trust a member of the armed forces to go and put his life on the line for us, yet we cannot trust the information that he and his family are directly supplying here in the UK. What does that say?

“Your Army needs you” is a recruitment call-out, and the website details many benefits of joining, including promises of child and adult safeguarding and support for emotional wellbeing, all of which is sanctioned and promoted by the Ministry of Defence. Those promises will seem pretty hollow if the UK Government fail to do the right thing by someone whom they have called on to serve for them. Let us expedite this case so that this family can be reunited. The Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a former lieutenant colonel in the British Army, said:

“Commonwealth troops should be able to bring their kids to Britain. If they fight for us, they should be able to live with us.”

I agree.

Veterans Aid responded to my note this morning by saying:

“Since 2007 we have interacted with nearly 700 Foreign & Commonwealth veterans seeking help with status issues. These range from regularisation of their own status to complicated appeals to reunite, or keep together, families. Indeed during 2012-14 —well before the scale of the Windrush debacle was revealed—we highlighted two landmark cases that effected a change in the law.”

More recently, in a case remarkably similar to the one that I have described, Veterans Aid

“successfully helped to reunite a father from Sierra Leone with his daughter. It took nine months to resolve.”

That is not Veterans Aid’s core business, but on the basis of considerable experience with a similar case, it was happy to advise if required. The charity continued:

“Behind each ‘case’ there is a tale of human misery and while the details differ, the causes rarely do. Residency and status regulations are complex and inflexible. Advice to those about to leave the Armed Forces is either not given, or not given a priority. Costs relating to residency and citizenship applications are prohibitively high—and well beyond the budget of a typical former infantry soldier with a family.”

When families are in this country, the difficulties do not end, and they continue when soldiers do manage to be reunited with their families. One such case is that of another constituent of mine, a serving Commonwealth soldier who has done tours in Afghanistan, Kenya, Jordan, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and France. His wife and stepdaughter applied for naturalisation in September 2017, but there is no decision yet.

[Jim Shannon]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has advanced a very good, comprehensive case. The soldier in the field who is doing his duty in uniform is always conscious of his family back home. The distress that he obviously experiences because of what is happening is bound to have an effect on him in the field, as it does on his family back home. Is it not really important that the Minister now, in response to the hon. Gentleman, takes this case on personally and sorts it out as soon as possible?

[Drew Hendry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. Absolutely—it is just the right thing to do. There is no dubiety here. He is absolutely right about the effect on people.

As I was saying, my constituent’s wife and daughter applied for naturalisation, with no decision yet. That means that despite his being a UK citizen, his wife and daughter do not have recourse to public funds and are not allowed to work, and the Home Office currently has all their identification documents. They have been waiting well over a year, and are yet another family of a Commonwealth soldier suffering at the hands of the Home Office, which insists that the case is “complex”. When I ask for a timeline for the decision, we are told that it cannot give us one, and so on.

Another case is that of Emmanuel, who is happy to be named. He wanted to bring his auntie over for a visit, but was unable to do so because she did not earn enough in Ghana, and the Home Office would not accept him paying for her visit here. He basically just wanted to see his family before he went off for a tour in Iraq in 2018. He wrote to my assistant, Callum:

“Dear Callum,

Good day and thank you very much for getting in touch.

Even though we felt abandoned in our own case, I will be more than glad for the MP to mention my case as an example and use my name if need be, so Parliament and the Home Office knows that these are real issues affecting real Commonwealth people.

I am sad to say that after two attempts, my auntie never was issued the visa. This is unacceptable, what is happening to Commonwealth citizens serving in the British army and it’s super bad for the recruitment drive!

It’s bad enough that these men and women, having signed blank cheques with their lives for this country, still pay the full cost for their naturalization to become British, and yet their loved ones cannot even visit them to keep them sane. My support for Mr Omondi in getting his daughter is massive, as it affects all of us Commonwealth people, especially when I and my partner have experienced this ill treatment. We are still devastated by what has happened to us, because I was going through postnatal depression then. Extend our thanks to Mr Drew for flying the Commonwealth flag for us in this matter.”

All these cases are simple. We have asked these people to come and do a duty for us—to put their life at risk, and to obviously involve their families, because that is a part of the job. I am asking the Minister now to take this seriously. In the case of Mr Omondi, I would like an answer. In the case of this entire situation for all Commonwealth armed services personnel, there is a big job to do to sort this out. Let us see the changes made that need to be made, and let us see those Commonwealth soldiers and armed forces personnel treated with the dignity that they deserve.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also welcome the Home Secretary’s comments today and the action to recognise Hezbollah for what it is. That sends a strong message to the world and those who wish to do us harm that the UK Government abhor terrorism in any form.

As we all know, Hezbollah is a well funded, powerful organisation that has a history of targeting British interests, including well documented links to attacks on British forces in Iraq. It killed 85 people in Argentina and five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. A Hezbollah operative with a forged British passport in Cyprus had eight tonnes of fertiliser, to be used to make bombs against Jewish and Israeli targets. According to the CIA, Hezbollah’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah has a history of being

“directly involved in many Hezbollah terrorist operations, including hostage taking, airline hijackings, and attacks against Lebanese rivals”.

I am therefore delighted that our country is now joining the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel and the Arab League in proscribing Hezbollah in full.

As well as being involved in international terrorism, Hezbollah plays a central role in the global drugs trade. There has been a wave of recent arrests in Europe of suspects linked to Hezbollah. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the criminal activities in which Hezbollah operatives regularly engage, including drug dealing and money laundering? Will he confirm that proscription will restrict Hezbollah’s ability to undertake such criminal activities in the UK? Is there a force directly tasked with addressing the issue?

Hezbollah has lost some 2,000 fighters in Syria. It has an arsenal of 150,000 rockets and 45,000 fighters, and it has said that its rockets can hit any part of Israel—even Tel Aviv. Does the Home Secretary agree that Hezbollah is one of the most destabilising forces in the region? Yesterday he stated that Hezbollah was continuing its attempts to destabilise the fragile situation in the middle east. We are no longer able to distinguish between its already banned military wing and its political party.

I thank the Home Secretary for making this decision. I think everyone in the House and the other place will support this motion, to make our people and our country safer. These are the sort of people who need to be put off the streets permanently.