Work for Serving Prisoners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Investing in education and work is a key part of preventing reoffending.

Frustratingly, without rehabilitation the alternative is a return to the easiest path—one of crime. We then see the revolving door of prison take another turn. Without intervention, one in two prison leavers reoffend within six months of release. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, and reoffending costs the UK an estimated £18.1 billion per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. When I heard what she was going to speak about, I wanted to intervene: first, because it is an admirable subject, and secondly, because I fully support what she is trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will come back to her along those lines. Does the hon. Lady agree that rehabilitation must take place in prisons, that part of rehabilitation is about giving the prisoner confidence that they can do something of value and worth, and that training in a new skill can do more for rehabilitation than group therapy sessions? That is the way to give an ex-inmate or prisoner the opportunity to do better, and that is what we should be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

We will absolutely consider that amendment. I should congratulate her on her appointment to her role in the Liberal Democrats. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Although the remand population is too big, we must ensure that inmates on remand receive the services that they need.

Youth justice is also a key priority for me, and this issue also affects the youth estate. On a recent visit to Wetherby young offenders institute, I observed brilliant work by teenage boys in what they call Q branch working on allotments, helping with the recycling, learning to make honey, and building a garden for the custody community. It is genuinely heartwarming and important work that these young offenders are undertaking as they reach maturity. My only disappointment came when I learned that only 5% of the children in the young offenders institute were able to access those facilities.

We must do more to make sure that every single offender who can do so safely has access to the skills and training that they need. Earlier today, I was in Birmingham to see the brilliant social enterprise Skill Mill. I met three 17-year-olds who are learning skills in construction, recycling and agriculture. Those skills mean that they will have options when they reach the age of 18 that they would not have otherwise had.

Good work is happening. A good example on the adult estate is Greene King’s academy at HMP Onley. What they call “the hideout” is a replica of a Greene King pub that gives prisoners real-world experience in hospitality, City & Guilds qualifications, and genuine job opportunities on release. Marston’s Brewery has a similar set-up in the academy at The Lock Inn at HMP Liverpool, which equips prisoners with professional catering and kitchen management skills. In fact, I must make sure that I visit The Lock Inn as a matter of urgency; I will tell my private office so. Graduates from both schemes have already gone directly into employment on release, so these initiatives really are successful. We have the data, but we need to improve it to ensure that the evidence base is there across the prison estate.

The future skills programme delivers vocational training based on employer and labour market needs and requirements. It offers a range of sector-specific skills training courses, with a guaranteed job interview on release. Building on that, and to address HMIP concerns about the intensity of the work experience, we are trialling a new Working Week project in five category C prisons, including HMP Ranby, which I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North visited recently. It is just a few miles from my constituency. Indeed, I drive past it on my commute to this place, and I will be visiting it in the coming months.

[Jim Shannon]

I was just thinking to myself that there probably are stats that show that many prisoners, with great respect—this is not meant to be judgmental—may not be able to read or write. When it comes to helping them find jobs, we have to create confidence in them, and enable them to say, “I can do that. I can learn to read and write, and can then get a job.” That is a very basic thing, but it is important. Maybe the Minister could tell us what will be done on that. That is not just about working skills; it is about life skills, social skills and being able to connect with the person next to them.

[Jake Richards]

I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.

In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations.

Sentencing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

As a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal justice system on victims, on communities and on our country as a whole. Because of that, I can say, hand on heart, that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this Bill and the transformative reforms it proposes—changes that will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful, lasting way.

I will use my time to talk specifically about probation resourcing. Before I get into the specifics, I ask Members to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but, having heard from Opposition Members, I think it is worth reiterating what last year looked like and remembering the crises we inherited from the previous Government: prisons nearing maximum capacity, the Probation Service understaffed and stretched to the brink of collapse, and a court backlog of more than 73,000 cases. And to what effect? Justice delayed is justice denied. We had a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under-resourced system that was nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals.

Difficult decisions were taken to manage those issues, regain control of our prisons and ensure that the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets. I am pleased that the Government acted quickly and decisively, but we must never find ourselves in that position again. That is why it is time to look forward and to consider how we can create a system that breaks down the cycles of reoffending, enables victims to secure swift, fair justice, and always has space to lock away society’s most violent and perverted offenders.

Those are precisely the provisions that the Bill will drive through, with measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, which are shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders, and towards a system that puts those aims at its heart. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release—a clear sign of a system not working as it should. It is not cheap, either: it is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year per prisoner. Those shocking statistics only confirm what I witnessed year in, year out when I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system, often committing the very same offences. I am old enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, that throughout my years working for the CPS, I was saddened to see those regulars later joined by their children, with entire generations of families caught up in gruelling cycles of reoffending.

The Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, subject to certain exceptions, and creates the pathway to improved community sentences with more effective measures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her wisdom. There are many measures in the Bill that the DUP supports and sees as commendable, but I would respectfully say that we have some concerns about reducing the length of custody for offenders, and our concern is sufficiently grave that we, as a party, will be supporting the reasoned amendment. I am sorry to say that, but I have to put it on record. There are many things that are good, but that is not good.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am saddened to hear that that is his position, but I am afraid it does not change my view of the Bill.

Strict and stringent measures will be in place to encourage rehabilitation. Those will be accompanied by a simplified probation requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each offender on a specific and individual level. Every offence is different, and under this system tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. That means putting in place measures best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation and deter them from future criminal activity. That is supported by evidence. The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36%, and it is 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements, so this approach works.

Let it be clear stated that in this system offenders are far from free to do whatever they like. They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions. That will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction, and towards gradual reintegration into society.

Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our Probation Service, and I am pleased that the Government have already committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited 1,000 new probation officers, with 1,300 more to come. However, as I said in previous debates when the sentencing review’s recommendations were first announced, the Government must be prepared to provide further resources to the Probation Service if that becomes necessary.

I am honoured to sit on the Justice Committee. Our inquiries have involved speaking to probation officers, and two things have been made clear. First, officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offers. Secondly, regardless of their goodwill and no matter how hard they work, probation officers cannot do their jobs effectively without proper resources. It is clear that the Probation Service has been working for many years on extremely limited resources, and we cannot let that continue under the measures in the Bill.

As a young prosecutor in the mid-2000s, under the previous Labour Government’s Respect agenda, I worked as part of the community justice initiative in Nottingham. The initiative, which was based on the Red Hook community justice centre in Brooklyn—America’s first multi-jurisdictional community court—adopted a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person’s offending, with agents such as housing officers, drug treatment workers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the sentencing process together. The approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences while enhancing public confidence in the Government. The award-winning centre is still running today, but sadly the Nottingham community justice court is not. Despite early and promising signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes.

Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in the Bill. Importantly, the review noted specifically that probation officers

“should be provided with the time, resources and autonomy necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content of probation requirements.”

Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights charity, has also outlined concerns about shortfalls of probation staff, including a deficit of around 10,000 Probation Service staff in August this year. The charity suggests that despite more Probation Service officers being appointed in the last year, the target staffing level of full-time equivalent probation officers has not yet been met.

As I said, I have seen at first hand what happens to great projects and well-evidenced initiatives if they are under-resourced. The Bill’s provisions rightly place increased responsibility on the Probation Service to deliver proper justice and to rehabilitate offenders, but it needs to be supported to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill and the Government’s announcement of increased funding for the Probation Service and the aim to recruit more probation officers, I am compelled to urge the Minister to ensure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in the Bill will ensure that our criminal justice system can once again keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish to pay tribute to the probation officers in Northern Ireland, who do an excellent job. I have met them many times, and they are magnificent. On many occasions they have to deal with young people who, due to peer pressure, find themselves influenced to do things that they normally would not do. Restorative justice is one way to try to make things better. Is there a direct strategy within Government to ensure that restorative justice is used to rehabilitate young people and give them the chance of a better life?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I remember his debate in the main Chamber well; it was highly emotional. I am pleased to see his continued passion for justice, openness and transparency—well done.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in the Northern Ireland Assembly back home, my colleague Paul Frew MLA is currently proposing a private Member’s Bill on the duty of candour in the health sector in particular. All the issues the hon. Gentleman raised are applicable there, too. The Democratic Unionist party supports the introduction of an evidence-based statutory duty of candour within Northern Ireland’s healthcare system that can hold people to account for failings where there was a deliberate withholding of information that could have prevented harm.

The Bill is currently out for consultation. We hope that it will make a change and maybe set a precedent for the United Kingdom. The measure, rooted in transparency and accountability, is crucial for restoring trust in our health services following a series of devastating failures such as the revelations of the infected blood inquiry and the tragic hyponatraemia-related deaths. While healthcare professionals work under immense pressure, it is vital that transparency prevails—not as punishment for mistakes, but as a safeguard against deliberate misinformation or obfuscation, particularly when it leads to harm.

I believe that the duty of candour is necessary across Government Departments, while acknowledging the need for a balance to ensure that staff are not hampered from making hard decisions because they believe that they will be personally culpable for them. I can well remember that during my time in a council, when we considered going against advice given, we were warned that, in any legislative challenge, we would be personally responsible through surcharge. At times, that scare tactic would have prevented the right decisions being made. I believe that the duty of candour must be balanced with protections. I look to the Minister to ensure that that is the case UK-wide.

It is also important that, if legal cases are needed to bring openness, there are funding streams available, rather than the crowdfunding that currently seems to be needed. As always, protections against vexatious claims are also needed. Any legislation must find that delicate balance, but there must be no doubt that the right legislation is needed, and needed soon. The days of backroom dealings are done forever. The public demands and deserves better.

Local Justice Area Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

From March to June this year, the Ministry of Justice held a public consultation on proposed reform of local justice areas. The consultation sought responses on a range of proposed structural changes set to affect magistrates across England and Wales. Among those proposed changes is the merging of three magistrates benches into a single north Wales bench to serve six local authorities covering an area totalling 2,383 square miles. As the Member of Parliament for a significant portion of the north-west Wales magistrates bench area, this plan is of particular concern to me, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it today.

The local justice system in the north of Wales currently comprises three magistrates benches—north-east Wales, which serves Wrexham and Sir y Fflint; north-central Wales, representing Conwy and Sir Ddinbych; and north-west Wales, covering Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. The north-west Wales bench is based at the Caernarfon justice centre in the largest town in my constituency. Magistrates are familiar with this court, and with making the journey to that location to undertake their duties. Under Ministry of Justice plans, however, magistrates will be expected to sit at other courts outside their so-called home court between 20% and 40% of their time.

In some areas and in more urban constituencies, that may not result in significantly increased journey times and distances, but that will indubitably not be the case for individuals in the north-west of Wales. For example, if a magistrate lives in Pen Llŷn, a journey to the Caernarfon magistrates court would incur a drive of about 40 minutes. If the same magistrate is called to the next nearest court in Llandudno as part of the 20% to 40% requirement, their journey time would nearly double to an hour and 15 minutes, and if they were called to the north-eastern courts in Mold or Wrexham, the journey times would be one hour and 40 minutes or two hours, respectively—and I must say that that is on a good day.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—I hope that is somewhere near the Welsh, but with an Ulster Scots accent—for bringing forward this debate and I congratulate her on it. I spoke to her beforehand just to ascertain the direction of travel. Does she agree that magistrates must know their communities and the characteristics of where they come from, so that they can best serve justice for the victims? In other words, the better they know where they come from, the better they know the people they serve, and then they can do their job.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, this is what we talk about: the nature of justice serving those communities. It needs to know the people within those communities and to reflect their characteristics to best serve the victims, defendants, advocates and witnesses in the process by which justice is seen to be done.

The longer journeys I mentioned will inevitably create difficulties. We must remember that magistrates in this instance are volunteers. Many have other responsibilities, such as childcare and the care of elderly relatives. Some will also be in work—in other employment. It is foreseen that the changes are very likely to result in resignations, so my first question is this: has an impact assessment been made of the potential loss of experienced magistrates, the need to recruit and train new magistrates, and whether certain groups of people will be worse affected by changes in travelling time?

Cost is another factor. If an individual magistrate currently sits only in Caernarfon court, but is now directed to spend a minimum requirement of 20% at Llandudno, the annual travel expenses claim are likely to double. If they were allocated, as is theoretically possible, 40% of their time in the Mold-Yr Wyddgrug court, their annual travel claim would be likely to increase by 600%. Will the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been carried out into those substantially increased costs and the effect on value for public money?

I want to turn now to the impact on Welsh language services. While the present three local justice areas are easily grouped under the title of north Wales, it must be recognised that the communities they serve are not uniform. Indeed, the differences are most apparent in their use of Welsh. The Act of Union 1536 decreed that only English could be used in courts in Wales. That was repealed by the Welsh Courts Act 1942, the first piece of legislation to recognise the right to use the language. Of course, legislation has moved on considerably since then.

The north-west Wales bench serves the two local authority areas with the highest estimated percentage of Welsh speakers, Gwynedd and Ynys Môn, where the Welsh language is in daily use as a community, family and administrative language. The magistrates court will routinely hear defendants, victims, witnesses and advocates drawn from those communities and from the town of Caernarfon itself, where 85% of the population speak Welsh. That is just not true for the other two areas in the proposed grouping. That is made clear in the percentage of Welsh-speaking magistrates across the current local justice areas at present: 55% speak Welsh in the north-west Wales area, 16% in the central north area and only 8% in the north-east. We must remember that the purpose of local justice is exactly that: for members of a particular community to administer justice in and on behalf of that community. That means, of course, reflecting that local community.

For the north-west Wales bench, this has resulted in the Caernarfon magistrates court routinely operating in Welsh. Indeed, the Caernarfon justice centre is the home of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s Welsh language unit. There is considerable concern that the hard-fought-for offer of a bilingual service in English and Welsh for all court users will be ill-served by the UK Government’s proposals and that prospective Welsh-speaking magistrates will think twice before applying for roles, thus further reducing the number of Welsh-speaking magistrates serving communities across the whole of north Wales.

That issue was immediately raised by senior magistrates on the north-west Wales bench. They asked why a full assessment had not been made of the impact of the recommendations on the use of the language and the availability of Welsh language services. An addition was then made, I understand, to the equalities statement, outlining a potential impact on magistrates’ use of the Welsh language, phrased as “protected characteristics”. But framing an assessment in that way fails to consider the potential impacts on the rights of victims, witnesses, defendants and service users, and fails to engage with the duties enshrined in the Welsh Language Act 1993.

I am grateful to understand from the Minister, in her response to my letter on this subject, that she is “mindful of commitments” under the MOJ’s Welsh language scheme, noting that this includes responsibilities to

“assess the linguistic consequences of policies affecting services provided to the people in Wales”

and

“to undertake a Welsh Language Impact Test during consultation”.

While we wait to see how those responsibilities play out, it is clear that magistrates in the north-west of Wales do not agree that an adequate assessment of the cultural and linguistic impact of these changes has yet been undertaken. In fact, magistrates have gone so far as to tell me that they believe the MOJ has treated Wales and the people of Wales with contempt.

They are not alone in their concerns, as the Welsh Language Commissioner has made clear. After receiving initial correspondence from the MOJ, the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office told magistrates that

“the information and response provided raises more questions about how the Welsh language was considered within the consultation, especially the alleged failure to consider the implications of moving Welsh Magistrates from Caernarfon to other courts across…Wales”—

that is a translation. The commissioner’s correspondence adds that they doubt whether the impact of the proposals on court users has been identified, particularly for those currently served by the north-west Wales bench. I am aware that the Welsh Language Commissioner has contacted the Minister in relation to their concerns, and I call on the Minister today to respond in full to the commissioner as soon as is practicable.

In her response to my letter, the Minister noted that the MOJ produced a

“full translation of the consultation document considering its relevance to Welsh magistrates, court staff and court users.”

The translation of such documents by public bodies is, in all honesty, the bare minimum—it is actually a requirement under Welsh language standards—and, in all honesty, that is not the point here. It is concerning that so little attention has been given to the effects of UK Government reform on the Welsh language, especially given the Labour Welsh Government’s goal of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.

Of course, this is not new. As a result of the closure of rural courts by the previous Conservative Government since 2010, the proportion of bilingual magistrates—who of course are able to work in Welsh and English; it is always worth spelling that out—serving Gwynedd and Môn has fallen from around 80% to just over 50%; as I mentioned earlier, it is at 55%. There are serious concerns that this reform in the north of Wales will further diminish the percentage and number of magistrates who will routinely be able to offer a service in both Welsh and English, restricting what is the right in law as regards language for court users.

It begs the question of how effective justice can be if a person is denied the right to justice in the language in which they express themselves best—the way they express their emotions and feelings. Of course, it is not only that; this language is one of the two official languages of the country. In the case of Caernarfon, and very much in the case of the greater part of Gwynedd and Môn, this is the first language of the majority of people.

My third question to the Minister is: when will there be a proper assessment into the impact of the use of Welsh in court under the proposed changes? After all, let us remember that when Dic Penderyn was sentenced to death in 1831 for his part in the Merthyr rising, he was tried in English, but he said from the scaffold, “O Arglwydd, dyma gamwedd,” or, “Oh Lord, this is injustice.”

The proposals follow what has already been considerable reform in the field of local justice. Local justice areas were last reorganised as recently as 2016. As I have mentioned, numerous courts across Wales have been closed since 2010, including those in Pwllheli, Llangefni, Dolgellau and Holyhead, with the operations centralised in Caernarfon. Magistrates have endured more than a decade of continuous change. Let us remember who they are: volunteers who dedicate their time to help provide justice in their local communities—that is why they have come forward. North-west Wales magistrates tell me that they are regularly praised for their performance. They say they have not been provided with any evidence as to why the proposed changes to merge benches in the north of Wales are necessary.

I suspect the MOJ may be considering following the model of North Wales Police, which is a regional police force. However, I hasten to point out that the force area operates community policing across three sub-regions—western, central and eastern—which reflect exactly the three benches as things stand in north Wales. The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board also serves the north Wales region in its entirety, but the pressure placed on it in endeavouring to meet the needs of its widely varying communities is recognised as contributing in part to its being in and out of special measures in seven of the past 10 years.

I have a couple more questions. Will the Minister therefore commit to ensuring that the local justice reform proposals will recognise that justice is best served by magistrates rooted in their communities, and, uniquely to Wales, able to work in both national languages? Will she also commit to redoubling efforts to recruit bilingual magistrates across Wales, so that benches can be fully representative of the communities they serve?

To conclude, the Minister told me last week that one of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link, and the fact that it delivers local justice. I agree with her entirely, which is why I secured this debate. I close by urging the Minister and her Department to consider the points that I have raised on behalf of magistrates in north-west Wales, and ask her please to respond to the questions that I have posed during this speech. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats believe there is a need for proper reform of the entire citizenship deprivation process. A transparent and accountable system for citizenship deprivation would ensure that this extraordinary power was used only in the most extreme circumstances, was never deployed for political reasons, and was consistently subjected to thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, the Bill before us falls short of that standard.

As I also said on Second Reading, the Home Secretary’s description of this Bill as merely closing a legal loophole does not mean that its provisions should escape robust scrutiny and review—quite the opposite; any expansion of powers to deprive individuals of citizenship demands the highest level of oversight. Earlier this year, even before this Bill was introduced, the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government’s current approach to citizenship deprivation falls short of the UK’s human rights obligations. It called for significantly greater safeguards, including stronger oversight and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. The Liberal Democrats fully echo that call.

New clause 1 seeks to embed essential safeguards within the framework of these new powers in the same way. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by clause 1 of this legislation. The review must begin within one year and be completed within two years of the passing of the Act. A report of the review must be produced and sent to the Secretary of State, who must then lay it before Parliament within one month.

New clause 1 recognises that although the Bill may appear narrow in scope, its consequences are substantial. The power to deprive someone of their citizenship is one of the most significant powers the state can wield, engaging fundamental rights and liberties. It is particularly serious given that under the current legislation, deprivation can—in some circumstances—leave an individual stateless. This is especially important in the UK, which uses citizenship deprivation orders more frequently than almost any other country. The Home Secretary already needs only to be

“satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”

in order to strip someone of their citizenship—a threshold that is far too low. New clause 1 would simply ensure that any further power granted to the Secretary of State is at least balanced by proper oversight and transparency in its application.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To be honest, I think many of us have sympathy for the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I am concerned about the security of this country, for which the Minister and the Government have responsibility. If someone contravenes that in any way or leads to any insecurity for the rest of the citizens, should they forfeit their right to citizenship?

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman is right that one of the most serious jobs of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—I completely agree. There is, though, a need for robust scrutiny. The Government must have confidence that the legislation they are putting forward has the support of this House and of the country, including that that legislation does what they say they want it to do and does not accidentally do something else. I think the most confident legislators are those who are open, transparent and welcoming of scrutiny, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

The Liberal Democrats support amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which would empower the courts to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a deprivation order in cases where doing so would place an individual at risk of harm or undermine their ability to mount an effective defence, or in cases where a public authority has caused unreasonable delays in the appeals process. This is a measured and sensible proposal that places essential limits on the excessive powers currently wielded by the Secretary of State in matters of citizenship deprivation, and we will support the amendment if the right hon. Gentleman pushes it to a vote.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s wealth of experience before our different sorts of courts, but I also respect the wealth of experience that Sir Brian Leveson has brought to bear in his review. He identifies that although a jury trial will always be appropriate for certain cases—not least for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined—we have to take a proportionate response. If we offered jury trials in all sorts of cases, certain victims and defendants would have to wait far too long for their day in court. As it stands, the vast majority—90%—of criminal trials in this country already happen without a jury. We have to consider very carefully where to draw the line, and that is what the Government will be doing this summer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is held in the highest esteem by all of us in this Chamber—that is never in doubt. The British justice system is the envy of the world, and it probably set the example for justice systems everywhere. I pose my question with the utmost respect. The Minister will understand Members’ reluctance to restrict the right to a jury of one’s peers, and to replace a multi-person jury with a judge-only trial. Does she not believe that we must look at extending court days and at other interim measures, rather than changing the course of justice, which has served us well and which most democracies base their justice system on?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the respect across this House is absolutely reciprocated. Rather than sitting idly, we have taken on the challenge of increasing investment to deliver a record number of Crown court sitting days—4,000 sitting days above the level agreed by the previous Government. We have increased investment in our criminal legal aid system to build capacity, so that we can man all the additional trials and meet the demands on the system. However, the clear lesson from Sir Brian’s report and the key conclusion that he has delivered today, which we will take firmly on board, is that continuing to try to sit our way out of the crisis is not sufficient. It is essential that we make reforms as well, and we will take the time necessary to consider what that looks like.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that prison officers have the time to do the job they came in to do, which is to spend time with offenders and turn their lives around. In addition, we have invested an initial £8 million in technology and launched a new programme to develop a sustainable work process that will allow probation staff to focus on the work they joined the service to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the probation office in Newtownards to get an idea of what it does. I was very impressed, first, by the quality of the staff; secondly, by the fact that they are involved in restorative justice issues relating to perpetrators and victims; and, thirdly, by the importance they give to ensuring that young people have opportunities. Can the Minister tell us, from his discussions with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, what has been done to ensure that what happens here also happens back home and that what happens back home also happens here?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he knows, we have regular discussions in the five nations group to ensure that good practice is shared, issues are addressed together and we learn from each other.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and she is right to raise this issue, which is very prevalent in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of specialist staff and training in adult ADHD, which is becoming a bigger part of the conversation. More needs to be done to rehabilitate in a certain way to ensure that prisoners are in a position to learn. Does the hon. Lady agree that, specifically for adult ADHD, the Government need to allocate more to training to ensure that prison staff are equipped to support people in prison settings who have ADHD?

[Tessa Munt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will come to that in a moment.

The impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending sits at the junction of many different interests. It seems likely that supporting people with ADHD could be a critical part of delivering the Government’s aim of rebuilding confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a clear link between ADHD and contact with the criminal justice system, and ADHD is significantly over-represented in prisons. While just 3% to 4% of people in the general population are currently identified as living with ADHD, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that the proportion is up to 25% in the prison population. Up to a quarter of people in prison are living with ADHD, but studies show that 41% of women in UK prisons meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of.

There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist. My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint.

It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life.

I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the TV last night, they did a survey of GPs. The relationship between a GP and a patient is incredibly close. When our children and grandchildren come into the world, our GP is involved. When a GP has to deliver a diagnosis of terminal illness, there is fear not just in the eyes of the patient but in the eyes of the GP—the doctor, the friend we all have. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of today’s debate and vote? It will change forever that relationship of trust between the GP and the patient; it will do so in a negative way and it will never change ever again.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so.

On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee. I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place.

We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), all the Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House for the approach that everyone has taken to this Bill.

I want to make it clear that I came to this Bill with an open mind. Like many, I supported it in principle at first glance, but this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death—that is not the decision before us today; it is not the issue on which we will walk through the Lobby when we decide to vote for or against this Bill. Our responsibility in this place is to make sure that the Bill is safe, workable and effective. That is the test that will lead us to vote for or against the Bill today. As the Bill stands, it presents a public safety issue.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I understand her concerns. They are the same concerns I have, on behalf of those who have anorexia, those with mental health conditions, troubled people—those who would be vulnerable when this idea was presented to them. Does she think, like I do, that this Bill does not in any way address the issue of those who are vulnerable, when it comes to assisted dying?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with.

I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Bill creates a criminal offence that would punish those who would coerce a relative in such a way. [Hon. Members: “Self-coerce.”] There are folks who talk about the concept of self-coercion, but others would frame such a decision as a choice. Self-coercion is a choice.

My constituent said,

“This could have been avoided with an assisted dying law. My partner was from a jurisdiction where such a law exists. A relative used that law. They were able to gather their family, say a proper goodbye and die in peace and with dignity before losing all physical and mental capacity.”

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Josh Babarinde]

I will not, to give others the chance to speak after me.

My constituent went on to say,

“The procedure to enable this was protracted and had several safeguards which would prevent much of the concerns we hear about by those opposed. I urge you to support this bill”—

the Bill, and not just the principle. I will do so because the status quo is completely unacceptable and must be reformed.