1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd? You are known as probably the most friendly Chair in the House, so we are pleased to have you here. We all enjoy your company. I certainly did last night; you and I had a good time together. Thank you very much for that.

I also thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my constituency neighbour. He has fought this battle for a long time. He has also been a good friend of mine, going way back to the time of the council and the Assembly.

[Alex Easton]

To 2001.

[Jim Shannon]

Was it 2001? My goodness! There we are—that is how long ago it was; I was not sure. I was really pleased to see the hon. Member set the scene so incredibly well today.

As I listened to the hon. Member’s speech, my mind—my memory—went back. Last night, Mr Dowd, we talked about things from many years ago and this debate has given us the chance to look back on that fateful day in June 1994. I remember what happened at that time; the story has been regurgitated each time the possibility of an inquiry has been mentioned since. I also remember the mists of the Mull of Kintyre. At one time the theory was that the IRA had done it, which was probably a reasonable assessment to make, but the fact is that it was not.

I pay tribute to the families of the victims, who over the years have given time and energy to pursue the truth. They have been patient over the years, even though every time they think about what took place, they must relive the trauma that they experienced then. We must be very aware of that. In the past, constituents have come to me about this issue, but we always seemed to hit a brick wall when it came to asking questions. The families had the questions and the questions that we asked as elected representatives were the questions that they asked us to ask for them. I should have said this before; forgive me for not doing so. It is nice to see the Minister for Veterans and People here today. I wish her well in her role. I understand that the Government have agreed to a meeting with the victims’ families. That is the right thing to do because the families are the reason we are all here today. I appreciate that.

The background to this case is very well known. There were 29 victims of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash back in June ’94, including 25 very senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts who deserve the transparency and accountability that only a judicial review can compel. As the years have passed, the evidence that the victims’ families have gauged and brought together is the work that the Government should have done, but did not. What a pity that is.

As I have said before, and as the Minister and others will know, Chief Constable Jon Boutcher supports a public inquiry, and that is of major importance. The fact that he is backing one is clear evidence that there should be an inquiry at the highest level. He, of course, might have known some of the victims, or none of them, but his present role is to ensure that the questions that the families want answered are answered, and the only way of doing that is through an inquiry. He further highlighted the need to address the uncertainty of the event—an endorsement at the highest level in relation to an inquiry.

Those who died in the Chinook crash of June 1994 were undoubtedly the cream of intelligence—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and those involved in other realms of intelligence. It is important that we deliver the justice and truth that their families seek. We have heard on numerous occasions about the cross-party support for a judicial review, and we have now engaged that collectively in this House: when we ask for this, it is on behalf of all parties. I am sure that those in the Labour party are equally anxious to ensure that we get justice and that those questions are answered.

This is not a political issue, though—it never has been. It is about taking the steps that are true and right. This is about justice for the families. The lack of transparency in this matter only betrays the truth and the victims’ service to this great nation. The hon. Member for North Down referred to their sacrifices—the efforts that they put in, the years that they spent in their jobs—and the families’ quest for justice over all those years. I am glad that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made the point about the pursuit of the airmen; their credibility was never questionable. We thank him for that. The right hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous Member of Parliament over all the years I have known him. His interest in this matter is deeply appreciated.

The families have been grieving for too long; that feeling of loss and unanswered questions will never go away. The Ministry of Defence’s lack of willingness to pursue the matter only prolongs that lack of trust. Was the helicopter airworthy? The evidence seems to show that it was not, and the pilots were certainly not to blame. There also seems to be evidence that this was not the first time the helicopter had broken down and had to be fixed, only for the same repairs to be needed again. The evidence suggests that. The families brought that evidence together, and we appreciate that. There are many questions that the families want answered.

I understand that the Minister will agree to a meeting with the victims’ families, and that that will involve more than one Minister. The Chinook crash has been described as the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime. We have all heard the speculation about the technical difficulties and the allegations of gross negligence. The evidential base that the families and others have brought together clearly shows that that was not the case. It is now time for the MOD to step in and step up.

Historically, documents such as the ones we are discussing have been sealed, sometimes for a century. I just cannot get my head around why anyone would want to seal something for a century if it has some impact on the inquiry that we are all seeking on behalf of the families. Releasing necessary documents allows for a restoration of trust, which some feel is wanting. Can the Minister say whether the decision to seal the information for 100 years —a century—can be reviewed and overturned? Many of us are asking that question on behalf of the families.

The second thing I would ask for is an apology to the victims’ families and friends, for having to wait for all these years to have the meetings and the inquiry that they have asked for. The Minister might be able to respond to that. There must be a formal acknowledgment of the tragedy—not for any admission of legal liability, but as a recognition of the emotional and societal impact that it has had on so many for so many years. The fact is that for years the Government and the MOD have tried to suppress what was happening; now, hopefully, the chance to hear about that is drawing closer. Confidence when it comes to the victims of the Chinook disaster of June 1994 has been wanting since that time.

My third ask is this: the overarching goal is to rebuild trust through transparency, accountability and genuine engagement, so will the Minister and the Government prove that that is what they are trying to achieve? Simply providing information is not enough. Families need to feel that the MOD is taking responsibility and prioritising justice.

Along with Northern Ireland colleagues, I will continue to represent the families of the Chinook crash until accountability prevails. As always, we offer our deepest sympathy to the families, who to this day are still living with the devastation of the events that occurred in 1994. Today, Government have the opportunity to give truth and justice to the victims’ families. We ask for that on their behalf.

Russian Ship Yantar

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I would not say that there has been a lack of accountability, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that until now there has been a lack of centralisation around our critical national infrastructure. A recent report was issued and we now have clear lines of accountability. Defence is a part of that and we are building our capability, with the view eventually of fulfilling our role with that structure. We are working collaboratively across Government to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is protected, so that should there be an incident, there is accountability.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his strong words and his answers, which encourage both hon. Members and those who are listening. Let us be clear and succinct: Russian ships have twice entered British sovereign waters, and to add to that aggression, they have been tracking our RAF pilots with lasers. Our enemy has breached our waters disgracefully, disregarded neutrality and shown disrespect. The facts and the evidence are there. To quote Winston Churchill, who I loved when I was a boy and who was certainly my hero:

“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be”.

Will the Minister confirm that this is a form of attack, and that the might of our armed forces is poised, their equipment is trained and they are ready to go?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful question. Be in no doubt: we will defend every inch of this country and our territorial waters. If anything is taking place in our EEZ, in particular, we will expose, we will attribute and, be in absolutely no doubt, we will hold people, organisations or countries accountable should there be any impact on or disruption to our critical national infrastructure.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for presenting the debate so well, and his passion, knowledge and deep interest are obvious. I support his plea: he, I and other Members in the Chamber wish to see any work retained in our own businesses, wherever those may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I also support his determination to ensure we retain the reputation as the world’s top fighting force.

It is a pleasure, as always, to see the Minister in his place—he has certainly earned his money in the last couple of days, and I am sure he will earn his money tomorrow as well. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place. He has a deep interest in these matters, and I wish him well in his contribution. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), also has a passion for this issue.

As a boy—that was not yesterday, by the way; I can just about remember when I was a boy—I imagined being a fighter pilot. Imagine Jim Shannon being a fighter pilot! People in the Ards peninsula would be scared stiff at the very thought. That came from listening to local men telling stories of the second world war; my grandchildren look up to their grandfather, and I suppose that when I heard the soldiers and Air Force people who came back from the second world war telling their stories, that sparked an energy and an interest in the subject right away. When I think of Typhoon fighters, that little boy in me from 60-odd years ago is excited once more—excited for what we can do, and excited by what the Labour party and the Government wish to do. It is the right thing, and it inspires us all.

This land-based, multi-role fighter, capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, forms the bulk of the RAF’s combat air fleet alongside the F-35. It also forms the RAF’s quick reaction alert force, providing air defence in the UK and across the wider NATO airspace when deployed overseas.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the quick reaction alert force, the NATO coverage and the contribution the Typhoon fighter would provide, does my hon. Friend agree that the proximity of the Irish Republic to the UK means that, in effect, we offer that nation some coverage and protection—which I presume we are quite happy to do—but at no cost to it whatever? Every NATO state has to pay considerably into NATO expenditure; the Republic pays nothing. Should our Government not approach the Government in the Republic to say, “We are covering for you. How about spending some of your money?”?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who always instils words of wisdom in these debates. He is right: the Republic of Ireland is our neighbour, and we want to have an economic friendship and relationship with it—by the way, we do not want to be annexed by it, and we are quite clear where we are on that. However, we do provide F-35 and Typhoon aircraft coverage, which the Republic gets the benefit of. I am not sure whether anybody from the Republic of Ireland listens to these debates or even knows about them, but maybe even as we speak someone is cluing in and saying, “You know something? There is an obligation for us. Let’s do our part alongside the UK.”

The envy of the world, the RAF had 129 Typhoon aircraft, of which 107 are still in service. When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Fylde said that almost 21,000 people are employed across the UK in support of the Typhoon programme. It is estimated that the programme contributed £1.6 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product in 2020. Its importance cannot be denied.

My constituency of Strangford and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) have large numbers of manufacturing jobs, so we understand how the lumbering allocation of contracts can bring hope—and then sometimes despair—to the workforce. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Fylde at the Government’s refusal to back British and ensure that our countries supply and make all possible goods.

I have argued the same case with the Ministry of Defence in relation to using Harland and Wolff in shipbuilding for defence contracts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have had a meeting within the last month to help ensure that the company can get more contracts. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can give us some encouragement for Northern Ireland in relation to procurement and contracts. We do not get the maximum we should out of defence contracts in Northern Ireland. We have a very skilled and able workforce, with apprenticeship opportunities, so we should focus on that.

I completely support the hon. Member for Fylde in his quest to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fulfils promises in a timely manner. As always, I am encouraged by Thales and the extra two Government contracts that have been put in place. There are now 200 new jobs there and apprenticeship opportunities. I have spoken to the management, who are very keen to ensure apprenticeship opportunities. I know some of them young fellas—I have known them since they were born—and they are the new apprentices and the new workforce for Thales.

It is not simply the future of manufacturing in Fylde that is at risk; it is the defence of this nation. Whenever we speak for something, we do so collectively. This is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England —working together. Those who serve this country in uniform come from all over, and we want to make sure we all get the benefit.

If the war with Russia and the Israel conflict have shown me anything, it is that those with the best weaponry have the upper hand. People seem to forget that, were it not for the Iron Dome defence system, Israel would have been rubble because of the incessant onslaught. If the Ukrainians did not have access to Thales lightweight multi-role missiles—LMMs—the battle against the might of Russia would be very different. I remember, in the first stages of the Ukraine war, the way that Thales LMMs were used to halt Russia’s advances and basically destroy its advance forces. They could be fired over the tops of houses and bungalows, and into the roads in between, to destroy the Russian armour. Those are the things that we should be promoting. When I saw them working in Ukraine, I was encouraged to know that some of my Strangford constituents—as well as probably some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East—manufactured them, and that they were able to destroy and halt the Russian advance.

The capacity and capability of our armed forces are, of course, world renowned, and the availability of top-of-the-range Typhoons are part of that. We must have Government backing for our defence strategy. I do not doubt that that is coming, by the way—this is not a question for the Minister—but sometimes we need encouragement and reassurance, which I think is what the hon. Member for Fylde is seeking. He is right to do so for his constituents and, indeed, for this great nation. We must also have backing for our manufacturing industry, which is the backbone of this great nation.

I support the hon. Gentleman and look to the Minister for firm action behind the words of affirmation that are undoubtedly coming. The time for fulfilment is now, and our manufacturing industry is more than ready to fulfil. We can deliver. This great nation has done it before; we can do it again, and we should do it now.

Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the debate we just had in this House on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces, and to have joined the public in marking Remembrance Sunday at St George’s Hall in Liverpool this weekend.

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on blood transfusions during the Falklands war. The reason I have secured the debate is primarily to tell a story—a rather remarkable story on behalf of one of my constituents, a veteran of the Falklands war. It is the story of blood transfusions that saved his life, but, as he later discovered, came at a profound cost.

My constituent, who prefers to remain anonymous, was a young man with 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment. In 1982, his life was on the cusp of a new chapter —he was engaged to be married—but the outbreak of war put his future on hold. In the early hours of 12 June, during the fierce overnight fighting for Mount Longdon, he was severely wounded. After a 10-hour wait, he was evacuated to the hospital ship SS Uganda.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Does he not agree that the story of these British servicemen saved through blood donations from the ARA hospital ship is one of those times when honour in war was demonstrated? Does he not further agree that we must ensure that every man and woman trained to serve under our flag knows the obligations of duty and honour when they wear that noble uniform?

[Dan Carden]

Absolutely, and I will develop the hon. Gentleman’s points.

To return to the story of my constituent, after that 10-hour delay and his move to the SS Uganda, he recalls waking from surgery to a nurse at his bedside who told him—I am quoting from his own testimony—that he had been

“filled up with Argentine blood”.

At the time, he thought nothing of it. He was simply grateful to be alive, surrounded as he was by those who were more seriously injured and knowing that many of his colleagues were not so lucky. He accepted it and got on with his life. He eventually married in 1985, and he and his wife have just celebrated 40 years of marriage.

However, the consequences of that lifesaving transfusion emerged years later. In 1993, after donating blood, he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. His wife and children were required to undergo preventive vaccinations. Later, he endured a brutal battle with kidney cancer, losing both kidneys and surviving five years on dialysis until a lifesaving transplant in 2017. Throughout that, the question of the origin of his hepatitis B lingered.

Reports about the infected blood scandal back here at home resonated deeply with my constituent, yet he finds himself in a cruel paradox: the Ministry of Defence, the institution he served, has so far refused to even acknowledge the fact that he received Argentine blood, saying only that it does not hold any recorded information related to blood transfusions during the Falklands war. Determined to get to the truth, my constituent began to conduct research into the events surrounding his blood transfusion. I must say, the evidence that he has gathered is astonishing. It includes records, telegrams, photographs and testimonies from all the people involved. That evidence pieces together a timeline of events, which I wish to share with the House tonight.

First, we must understand the logistical reality aboard the SS Uganda prior to my constituent’s injury. On 28 April 1982, the ship took aboard 360 units of blood from the Army blood supply depot at Ascension Island. Records kept by the ship’s crew, and obtained by my constituent, show that by 10 June, after expiries and transfers to other units, the SS Uganda was left with just 46 units of blood.

On 4 June 1982, the senior medical officer of the SS Uganda, Surgeon Captain Andrew Rintoul, met the captain of the Argentine ship Bahía Paraíso. Captain Rintoul’s own written account confirms that the Argentines

“generously offered to supply Uganda if urgently needed”

in accordance with Geneva rules. That urgent need arrived just days later, when the SS Uganda received 160 new British casualties, mainly from the bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad on 8 June. The numbers speak for themselves: how could 46 units possibly treat so many severely wounded patents?

Secondly, we have testimony from the medical professionals involved. From the British side, a senior nursing officer who served aboard the SS Uganda, told my constituent that she was aware that

“some supplies came from the Argentine hospital ships.”

Another former SS Uganda nurse recalls the “unique encounter” with the Bahía Paraíso, stating that blood was obtained from it for British patients.

From the Argentine side, the evidence is even more direct. My constituent has contacted several doctors who were aboard the ARA Bahía Paraíso. The biochemical lieutenant stated that the Argentines provided a considerable number of sachets of blood to the SS Uganda. He said:

“I swore the traditional and ancient Hippocratic oath. For that reason, both you and we treat the wounded regardless of which side they belong to.”

Another Argentine doctor, who physically visited the SS Uganda via the Bahía Paraíso’s Puma AE-506 helicopter, was asked whether English patients received Argentine blood. His answer was simple and definitive:

“Yes, sir, they received Argentine blood. We brought it to them.”

My constituent also managed to contact the sergeant aboard the helicopter, who confirmed:

“On 10 June 1982, we transported 250 litres of blood from hospital ship ARA Bahía Paraíso to hospital ship SS Uganda. We met several times to exchange wounded and medicines—a great example of military medical care in combat.”

In fact, the exchange was commended in Argentine media as part of the 40th anniversary of the war.

My constituent has dozens of photographs showing the Puma AE-506 helicopter landing on the SS Uganda; British and Argentine doctors and crew members together aboard the SS Uganda; and the SS Uganda plaque gifted to ARA Bahía Paraíso in thanks. It is important to state clearly that my constituent holds no ill will towards the medical staff—British or Argentine—who saved his life. He is grateful. They acted under the extreme duress of war, making a humanitarian choice in the best interests of their patients. Yet, that act of salvation also had lifelong consequences for him, and if it happened to him, it is likely that others among the hundreds of casualties treated after that date were similarly exposed. Should there not be an effort to identify and contact those veterans, to ensure that they too are aware?

The exchange between the ARA Bahía Paraíso and SS Uganda is no secret; it is a documented historical event. The evidence provided by my constituent is overwhelming, credible and drawn from multiple sources. All he is asking is that the Ministry of Defence acknowledges what the evidence so compellingly demonstrates. The refusal to do so is a heavy burden for him; it prevents him from achieving closure and, potentially, from seeking the specific recognition and support that may be available to him for a service-related illness.

My ask of the Minister this evening is simple: for the truth to be officially recognised. I urge her to meet my constituent and me to review the extensive dossier of evidence that he has so painstakingly assembled over the years. Then, we may finally recognise what the historical record already shows: that he and others received Argentine blood transfusions on the SS Uganda.

This is about according a veteran the simple dignity of truth. He served his country with great honour. He bore the physical and psychological wounds of that service. The very least he deserves is for his country to look at the facts and acknowledge what happened. I hope the Minister tonight can give him and this House a commitment to do just that.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend—the history of the 14th Army is a proud one. It was a marvellous amalgam, under a brilliant leader, of people from countries and races from around the entire Commonwealth who fought with one common aim: freedom. They were sometimes called the forgotten army, but they are not forgotten tonight.

After the horrors of the trenches and an understandable aversion to war in the 1920s, with Britain exhausted—both financially and emotionally—by the horrors of the great war, the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as the 10-year rule. This was not just the policy of the War Office or the Admiralty, as they then were; it was a pan-Whitehall edict, the essence of which was that Britain would not have to fight another major war for at least 10 years. This key planning assumption became the centrepiece of British strategic theory and, with strong endorsement from the Treasury, the 10-year rule soon became a rolling one, extended on an annual basis. Given that no war was expected for at least a decade, this allowed for major economies in the financing of the armed forces and an associated running-down of all three services. As one example of how seriously the 10-year rule was taken and implemented, even Winston Churchill during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s exerted pressure to cut back on his beloved Royal Navy—the same service he had fought tenaciously to expand as First Lord of the Admiralty barely a decade before.

Indeed, as a mood of pacifism gripped the nation, in 1933—the same year in which Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany—the earnest students of the Oxford Union, who are having their own problems at the moment, passed a motion by a majority of over two to one that

“this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”.

The subsequent policy of appeasement from the 1930s British establishment—the blob of their day—was as erroneous then as it would be today. Authoritarian dictators tend to admire strength, particularly their own, and despise weakness—a lesson that any British Government, including this one, would do well to remember. History tells us again and again that the appeasement of dictators does not work, just as it failed to work in the 1930s

The 10-year rule, which by that stage had lasted well over a decade, was eventually rescinded in 1935-36 as Britain began to rearm in response to Hitler’s increasingly bellicose behaviour. Nevertheless, that rearmament, and comparable action by our allies, was ultimately insufficient to deter what then became the second world war—a brutal conflict in which over 50 million people died, far more even than had perished in the supposed war to end all wars some two decades before.

I mention all this not just because I studied history and then military history at university, but because if—as Members of this House believe, and as I have always believed—the ultimate goal of our armed forces is to save lives by deterring war and persuading any potential aggressor that they could not prevail, then even today we all need to ask ourselves, regardless of party, whether we are doing enough to secure the peace by maintaining sufficiently strong armed forces to provide such a vital deterrent effect. It is a historical fact that twice in the last century, this country paid an immense cost in both blood and treasure to defeat militarism.

Today, the threats are somewhat different, with a war on our doorstep in Europe following Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in effect now fighting for our freedom too, and we must back them to the hilt as a result. We also see a major rearmament by China; North Korea continues to develop even longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, now with support from Russia; and Iran continues to exert malign influence across the middle east, even after the successful American strike on its emerging nuclear capabilities. The circumstances may have changed, but the principle remains exactly the same. We in the western democracies cannot drop our guard against the growing powers of the 21st-century autocracies—something that those who fought in the second world war would instinctively understand only too well.

Bearing in mind the Minister’s caution, I was genuinely concerned to read one passage of the Government’s recent strategic defence review—its seminal defence policy document. On page 43, under the heading “Transforming UK Warfighting”, it states:

“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”

I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that seems to contain an echo of the 10-year rule of the 1920s. While there was a great deal of good in the SDR, not least the intention to speed up our highly bureaucratic procurement system—about which I have always held firm views, as the Minister knows—I nevertheless worry, given increasing threats from Russia and now also from China, about whether the Ministry of Defence today displays the genuine sense of urgency that is required to meet the challenges we now all clearly face. Before I am accused of selective quoting, the same paragraph of the SDR goes on to say:

“This vision could be achieved more quickly should circumstances demand it and should more resources be made available.”

Notwithstanding those words, with much of the new money in the SDR unavailable for at least two years and a multibillion-pound programme of in-year efficiency savings now under way, I merely ask whether we have really learned the lessons of the past century as well as we might have.

In conclusion, we in these islands have always ultimately been prepared to make great sacrifices to uphold the freedom of Europe, and indeed of the wider world. That is why, given our history, we should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In response to the philosopher Edmund Burke’s famous challenge that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, twice in the past century our own good men and women across the nation stood up to and defeated such evil, with our armed forces in the lead. Rightfully, we solemnly remember that sacrifice each and every November, including in this House tonight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While we are celebrating and remembering the greatest generation, we also have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. Perhaps we should be focusing on that as well—looking back, but also looking forward, as I think the Minister said. We must try to raise a generation of young people who are proud to be British, to stand against repression, and to undertake to be inclusive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is what we need to build for?

[Mr Francois]

As a young person myself, having recently turned 60—[Laughter.] In all seriousness, at the remembrances services that I attended this weekend—like, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House—I was struck by the number of young people from, for instance, the Cubs, the Scouts and the Brownies who attended those services and, in many cases, participated, and laid tributes, wreaths and crosses of their own. I took great heart from that, and I believe that there is hope yet.

There would be no greater betrayal of the sacrifices that we have been debating this evening than would occur if we as a House, with all the other matters that we have to consider, somehow became so distracted or complacent that we failed to act with sufficient clarity of purpose and determination to deter a future major conflict, perhaps even a global one, from breaking out again in our lifetimes. To put it, perhaps, in another way, we must now conduct ourselves, in “our today”, in such a way as never to risk the security of “our tomorrow”. With that sincere warning, I pay tribute to our valiant armed forces, both past and present, and to everything that they do, day in and day out, to keep us and our country safe and free—lest we forget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years of part-time service. Like others, I know what it is like to lose colleagues and loved ones in the name of safety, security, democracy and freedom.

I represent Strangford constituency, where conscription was never needed. In a nation of volunteers, we were always a constituency of volunteers. I know I am not the only person who was so upset to hear on TV last week the 100-year-old veteran question the point of his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of his colleagues. What a chord it struck to know that this man is looking around at the modern-day UK and wondering what it was all for. These are the men and women to whom the flag means something, and for whom loyalty to the Crown was worth shedding blood. They believed that it was worth giving their life for those in their community. They are the generation who went to war because they knew what was needed. They worked hard, they played hard, and they are proud of their history and their heritage. I watched as my community was ravaged by terrorism, and I now see those who protected the community being ravaged by vexatious attempts to rewrite history.

These men and women wonder whether it was worth shedding the blood that was shed. I say: yes, it was worth it. I look at my six grandchildren and believe it was worth it, and that all is not lost. In them is the hope of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which works hard, plays hard, keeps calm and carries on. In them will the stories of war heroes such as Blair Mayne live on. We will teach them that they need not be ashamed of their pride in being British, and need not apologise for being Ulster Scots, or for being who they are. We talk of the greatest generation; we have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. That is why it was worth it. That is why it is worth this Chamber deciding that the lessons of the world wars and the Holocaust should be taught in every school in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why it is worth this House remembering and celebrating those men and women, and I do so today, along with others who have spoken.

I think of those men and women and I thank God for what they did. I ask God for his help in raising tomorrow’s young people—my grandchildren and yours—so that they are proud to be British, to stand against oppression, and to undertake to be inclusive. We in this House should listen to the veteran Alec Penstone. He served his nation with courage and watched his friends being killed on D-day. We need to restore British values, British justice and British pride. The battle is as essential to the future of this nation as any that we have ever fought. I will fight alongside others for Crown and country, freedom and democracy, justice and liberty, and the future of my children and my grandchildren, and everyone’s grandchildren. We remember the past—of course we do—but we also look to the future, with grateful thanks for the sacrifice that gave us freedom, liberty and democracy. That, we can never forget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do indeed. If big countries believe that they can redraw international boundaries by force and get away with it, then no democracy and no state is safe. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a secure, sovereign Ukraine is central to Europe’s security in future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Reports in the newspapers indicate that 150,000 new Russian soldiers are being prepared for an onslaught in eastern Ukraine. I do not doubt for one second that the Secretary of State, the Labour Government and this Parliament are committed to doing something, but reports seem to indicate that other countries are slowing down on what they give. Has he been able to encourage other countries to ensure that they replicate what we give?

[John Healey]

The answer is yes, through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group—50 nations that have committed to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Together, we have secured £50 billion of pledges of military aid to Ukraine in this year alone, and I am proud of the way that the UK has stepped in, alongside Germany, to lead that group. It is part of what we are doing, with others, to step up support for Ukraine, which will be needed even more in the months to come.

Support for Disabled Veterans

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Too often, the system fails to provide a simple, supported handover to civilian healthcare, or advice on housing, employment and benefits. Charities and veterans’ groups are calling for an independent review of the medical discharge process across all services to make it consistent, compassionate and genuinely supportive, so that no disabled veteran falls through the cracks, or is left without the best possible support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. The armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland needs to be upgraded as well. The covenant is only as good as the authority that implements it. Does she agree that a review must be carried out to ensure improvements in how our veterans are helped, especially those who have been left with physical or mental trauma? We must review the situation in every constituency of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every soldier needs to be looked after.

[Liz Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

According to Help for Heroes, veterans with complex mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, often face long waits for mental health treatment. Although the armed forces covenant promises priority treatment for service-related conditions, the reality on the ground can fall short. In England, Op Courage is a welcome single front door for veteran mental health, but there remain issues with consistency, capacity and specialist expertise. We need an improved Op Courage pathway with a common assessment tool, better signposting from GPs and acute trusts, and an explicit requirement that practitioners delivering care have expertise in military mental health. Access should be seamless across the UK, so that when it comes to support, there is no postcode lottery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for all her answers, and I wish her well in her new position. She will be aware of the charity Beyond the Battlefield in Portavogie, in my constituency, which looks after soldiers across Northern Ireland who fall between the cracks. May I extend an invitation to her? It would be lovely to see her in Portavogie and Strangford, and I know that the people there would be encouraged by a visit from her.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I certainly hope to visit Northern Ireland soon, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Yes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. and gallant Minister on his elevation, which is well deserved, an on the comment he made about not be intimidated. He speaks for us all in that regard—indeed, I almost feel a poster campaign coming, about standing firm. The incursion of Russian drones into a NATO member nation is a slap in the face for the very idea of NATO and must be dealt with effectively and immediately. What collective discussions will be held within NATO to determine a robust response to the testing of our borders and the resolution to stand fast against Russia?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and his support for defence. Discussions in the E5 are ongoing as we speak, and the NAC has sat and will continue to discuss this issue. I can guarantee him that the UK will be at the very centre of those discussions and no one will intimidate this great isle at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

To a Minister just promoted by the son of a toolmaker in the reshuffle, tooling is a very appropriate question. We are targeting more of the increased defence budget at British companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, with the development of the new defence SME hub, which will allow more SMEs to access the defence contracts we are providing as part of our growing renewal of our armed forces. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her constituency business.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, who is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, for his answers. Thales has received significant contract work from the Ministry of Defence, with 200 jobs coming out of that, and Spirit AeroSystems has also achieved some of that, with extra jobs, but many other defence companies could also take advantage. Will the Minister confirm that those other companies will have the same opportunities?

[Luke Pollard]

I am very happy to say that we are seeking growth in defence businesses in every part of the United Kingdom. When we launch the defence industrial strategy very shortly, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to see one of the new defence growth zones in Northern Ireland providing opportunities for young people to start new good careers in defence. Also, companies that might not think of themselves as defence companies at the moment will be able not just to sell to UK armed forces, but to take export opportunities selling to our allies around the world.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I take that as a strong early bid, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how we can maximise skills in his constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for the incredibly good news that he and the Labour Government have delivered today in this Chamber. Every one of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will relish the idea of jobs coming our way.

We in the Democratic Unionist party welcome the defence industrial strategy, acknowledging the need for world-class defence and making the most of our world-class defence businesses. One of those, Thales, employs hundreds of my Strangford constituents, and it has been instrumental in protecting Ukraine. There were some 200 new jobs—including, I understand, 30 apprenticeships—no more than three months ago. With news circulating that defence spending commitments will create a total of 85,000 jobs across the sector in the next 10 years, will the Minister reaffirm the role of Northern Ireland in the industry and indeed in the defence of this great nation?

[Luke Pollard]

Let me be very clear: there are growth opportunities in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. We have today announced a defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which builds on the incredible skills that we already see in defence companies in Northern Ireland. This Government were very proud to announce the £1.6 billion contract for the lightweight multirole missile, which will be built in Northern Ireland. It will be used to shoot down Russian drones attacking our allies in Ukraine, which is precisely how we can make defence an engine of growth as well as support our security objectives. The workers in Northern Ireland should be very proud of the work they are doing; I certainly am.