Theft of Tools of Trade

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for the theft of tools of trade.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Over recent years, we have seen a surge in thefts from tradespeople, particularly thefts of essential tools from vans and workplaces. According to industry, one in 10 tradespeople will fall victim to tool theft this year alone. For many, it will not be the first time or, sadly, the last. The same proportion have already experienced this devastating crime three or more times in their career.

Tool theft is not a victimless crime, and it is not petty. The average cost of stolen tools stands at almost £3,000 in each instance. When we add that to £1,500 for vehicle repairs and £2,000 in lost earnings and business disruption, we are suddenly looking at £6,000 to £7,000 in immediate losses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right to raise the issue. I am sorry to say that tool theft is a critical issue in all our constituencies. In my constituency we have a tradition of working in construction, but vans are regularly broken into. Does she agree that there is a cost to this disgraceful theft not only in tool replacement, but in lost jobs and time? In 2022, more than 40,000 cases of tool theft were reported across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland alone, it costs £1.5 million annually, but that does not come close to describing the true cost.

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Gentleman notes, it is not just about the money. The real damage cannot always be calculated in pounds and pence or in immediate loss. More than 40% of victims report reputational harm; one in 10 said that the damage to their business standing was significant. Tragically, more than 80% report a decline in their mental health. Let us not forget that the construction industry already has one of the highest suicide rates of any profession in the UK.

Tool theft is happening in every part of our community. It happens to people who are the very backbone of the British economy—our electricians, our plumbers, our carpenters, our gas engineers—and too often it is without consequence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that securing employment is known to reduce the risk of reoffending significantly. The Minister for prisons in the other place has led a business with a track record of getting offenders into employment, and I understand that National Highways is starting to build strong partnerships as chair of the employment councils in Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. To help offenders into employment, they need to have the opportunity of training while in prison, and whenever they leave prison to go back into the societies where they live they need someone there to oversee them and ensure they are following the right path. Will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that that is the case? He is a good Minister, so will he share his ideas with the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the good things that happen here can happen in Northern Ireland as well?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very happy to share good practice across Northern Ireland and other regions of the UK, so that we can all learn from one another, and officials meet in the five nations group, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He is right to say that we need to ensure that people are supported as they move into the community. That is why we are investing in probation, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said, onboarding more than 1,000 probation officers this year and another 1,300 next year.

Decriminalising Abortion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is right, and of course it was a 2018 Supreme Court decision that showed that the rules that were then in force in Northern Ireland violated the human rights of women. That has to be at the centre of our considerations.

Let me finish listing the exceptions so that I can get to the point. Risk of grave or permanent injury, risk to the mother’s life and substantial foetal abnormality are exceptions without any gestational time limit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will press on, because I am conscious of the time. Maybe we will come back to this.

[Jim Shannon]

We have three hours.

[Tony Vaughan]

All right then.

[Jim Shannon]

The reason I knew that is because before the debate I checked with you, Mr Vickers, that we would have ample time to speak. It is important to put something on the record about the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland. I say this respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows that that is the way I always try to make my points: the legislation in Northern Ireland was imposed by Westminster because we did not have a Northern Ireland Assembly that was working at the time. The elected representatives therefore could not have an input into the process, and, according to the polls, the people of Northern Ireland were very much against the type of legislation coming in. He refers to the Northern Ireland legislation, but it is Northern Ireland legislation that the Government here imposed; Northern Ireland had no input into it.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I come back to what I said to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough: whatever the position at the time of the law’s coming into force, I am not aware of there being a movement or democratic support for changing the law back to what it was before. When we talk about whether laws meet the current standards and societal norms, that is the most important thing.

Let me turn to how the law is applied in England and Wales. Until 2022, it was believed that only three women had been convicted of having an illegal abortion in the 150 years since the 1861 Act, under which most illegal abortions are prosecuted, but there has been a recent increase in the prosecutions of women for procuring miscarriage under the Act. The Crown Prosecution Service reports that in the period January 2019 to March 2023, six people were charged with child destruction and 11 were charged with procuring miscarriage under section 58 of the 1861 Act.

One of those people was Nicola Packer, who took home abortion medication following a teleconsultation, believing that she was less than 10 weeks pregnant. She was in fact 26 weeks pregnant, and was accused of having an illegal abortion. On 7 November 2020, she was in hospital. The next day—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I come to Westminster Hall and find myself the first person to be called after the Member in charge, in this case of the petition. I am pleased to be able to comment on where we are on the petition. In this world, I try to be respectful to everyone—that is the nature of who I am and what I do. I probably have a very different opinion from the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who spoke on behalf of the petition, and other Members who will speak afterwards.

It is one of the quirks of this place and our procedures that we find ourselves debating this petition today, when in all likelihood we will have a similar debate in the next few weeks on new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the main Chamber. Our debate today is almost a rehearsal for what will come in a few weeks’ time. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Vickers, that I will not digress too much into discussion of the specifics of the new clauses, but it is safe to say that they are deeply concerning to me and many thousands of my constituents. I referred to where we are and our position in Northern Ireland. My constituents have made me aware of their position, so in speaking today I will represent that and the position of many other constituents across Northern Ireland.

I should say at the outset that I find it tragically ironic that proposals have been made to further liberalise a law here in part on the premise that the law is more liberal, more permissive, and supposedly more progressive in Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made today. Of course, the change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was only brought about as a result of overreach—I use that word on purpose—by Westminster, undermining the constitutional value of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives, who should have been allowed to make decisions on this matter. On a personal level and on behalf of my constituents, it is important to place that on record in this Westminster Hall debate.

Hon. Members know my position on abortion; it is a matter of public record. In coming up to 15 years here, there has not been a question or a debate on this subject that I have not participated in or had a question on in the Chamber. That is for the record. I will not go into much detail, save to say that in my view every abortion is a tragedy for both the woman and the unborn child whose life is cut short. I hope that my view will be respected in this debate, as I respect those who hold a very different view from my own. This is a very sensitive subject and deserves to be considered in that light, but it is also important that we consider this debate in the round.

There is no right to abortion in international law. It is worth noting at the outset that, contrary to what seems to be a popular belief both in the media and among some hon. Members, even academics who take an opposing view to mine on abortion acknowledge that there is no right to abortion directly enshrined in any key international human rights instrument. That is their opinion. I put that on the record as well, because it is important to discuss these matters in full. Although this is often cited as the impetus and imperative for change in the UK, the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are not binding on the United Kingdom. We can and should determine our own laws on this subject. It is neither required nor determined that we should go down the path of further liberalisation.

Abortion is not simply medical treatment. This is not a simple matter—it certainly is not for me and my constituents and those of us who represent this point of view.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. In contrast, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, states that the child

“needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Does he agree with me that in every case both lives matter?

[Jim Shannon]

That is exactly the point. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Her mind is the same as my mind and that of the people we represent across the Province and in our constituencies.

Abortion is not simply a medical treatment. It is not a simple matter. One of the underlying rationales behind the push for decriminalisation of abortion is worth addressing. Abortion is not a mere medical treatment that should be treated akin to other matters of healthcare. However uncomfortable this may be to confront, my view and the biological reality is that there is more than one life involved in any abortion. It is essential that that is reflected in the law and in the penalties that result from breaking that law. Of course, laws send messages and shape culture.

[Emily Darlington]

I completely agree that we need to be respectful in this debate as people hold views on all sides. But does the hon. Member agree with me that when we criminalise women, their bodies and abortions, we get absolutely mad circumstances as we have seen in the US, where a woman cannot be saved in the emergency room or in A&E because it might facilitate losing the child, or she is kept alive by machines against her family’s wishes just because she was nine weeks pregnant at the time of her accident?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand the point that she makes. I mentioned earlier that in every abortion two lives are involved. There is the life of the mum and the life of the baby—two lives that have to be considered. We also have to be concerned about backstreet abortions and where they can sometimes lead.

Laws, as I said, send messages and shape culture. More broadly, they are a reflection of our core values as a society. Although calls for abortion decriminalisation are repeated and vocal, I truly think—I say this with great respect—that many people do not understand the implications of decriminalising abortion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has her opinion and I have mine—I certainly have a different interpretation of what she refers to.

[Ms Creasy]

I hope the hon. Member knows that, although I disagree with him on this matter, I have always done so respectfully, and fought for his right to be heard. However, I want to challenge him on the idea that we can have only an opinion on what actual decriminalisation and the human rights framework would look like. We have seen what it looks like in Northern Ireland since 2019, and we now have a body of work by a commissioner at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, including court cases in which she has intervened to uphold that human right, to see the implications of decriminalisation. We may differ on whether the impact is one we would like to see in this society, but we cannot deny that there is now a body of evidence about what a human rights framework and approach to abortion access would look like.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that. She and I have debated this at some length over the years from two different points of view. I think that decriminalisation leads to deregulation, and I have concerns about where we will end up. As I said, I aim to represent the views of my constituents, as well as the views of other Members’ constituents. Another three hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have similar views to my own have been driven by their constituents to respectfully give their point of view in the Chamber today.

Decriminalising abortion by disapplying the provisions of existing penalties under sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or by repealing these provisions altogether, would be a seismic change. I use the word “seismic” on purpose, because I believe it reflects the size and magnitude of what has been proposed. To be clear, regardless of whether the specific provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 are touched on by amendments to other legislation, gutting the laws that underpin that Act would have the same effect. Depending on the model of decriminalisation, the effect could be wide enough to include de facto access to abortion for woman up to the point of birth for any reason. There would, for example, be no enforceable prohibition on abortion on the basis of the sex of the unborn baby that would have criminal repercussions.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that Britain already has very liberal abortion laws? It is double the 12-week average in any member of the European Union. Polling by Savanta ComRes, a highly respected polling company, has shown that 70% of women support a reduction in the abortion time limit, and 91% want an explicit ban on sex-selective abortions.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Many moons ago, we were friends in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the council, and we are still friends at Westminster. I am aware of the Savanta ComRes polls, which were taken over a period of time. They cannot be ignored, because they provide focus for where we are.

Without criminal repercussions, or new restrictions on abortions that are carried out by a woman or a malignant professional up to birth, are we truly ready to take such a radical step? I do not want to belabour the point, but I find it deeply worrying that a child born prematurely, for example at 22 or 24 weeks, would be treated as a legal person with full rights, while decriminalisation would permit abortion at the same gestational age with no legal recourse.

I said earlier that there are two people in this: the mother and the baby.

[Ms Creasy]

Under our current criminal legislation, there are exemptions from prosecution for abortions that take place up to 24 weeks, and in some instances further, if there is a threat of death to the mother or the child. What the hon. Member is talking about are the 3,000 abortions that happen every year after someone has had the worst news possible—when they are told after their 20-week anomaly scan that the baby they really wanted will not make it past birth. I do not think the hon. Member is a cruel man, and I do not think he wishes to advocate that women should be forced to carry children they know will die to term, but that is not affected by our current regulations. He is putting at risk women’s access in that moment by advocating a reduction in the time limit.

[Jim Shannon]

Obviously, the hon. Lady and I have slightly different opinions about decriminalisation. I have been concerned over a period of time, and still am, about examples of cases involving Down’s syndrome children, including one in Northern Ireland—a lovely, young Down’s syndrome child who would not be here today had her parents not decided to ensure that she had the opportunity to have a life. We are talking about those things. Ultimately, we are talking not solely about what is ethically or morally good or bad, or right or wrong, but about what would be permissible under the law without criminal sanction. That is what I and other hon. Members are talking about: the reality in law, and an increase in late-term unsafe abortions.

Decriminalisation sounds innocuous but, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to, when the public is polled on its effect, the results are plain: only 1% of the public support abortion being permitted up to birth, which is what decriminalisation of abortion would permit without legal consequence, against the views of the majority—99% of people. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that following the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand in March 2020, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to, late-term abortions—those occurring after 20 weeks gestation—increased by 43% compared to the previous year. That is not scaremongering; it is evidential fact. We are asking that all hon. Members take on board that information.

As the evidence from overseas shows, the risk of decriminalising abortion is not only that more abortions may take place but that the dangerous, unsafe abortions that supposedly prompted the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales will occur. To date, none of the legislative proposals for decriminalisation, including the proposed new clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill, contains safeguards that would effectively guard against women seeking abortions while subject to coercion or abuse. Given the operation of the pills-by-post system, it is also not clear to me or to some hon. Members in this Chamber that there can be any guarantee that a woman’s gestational age or her general health would be effectively ascertained under a decriminalisation regime.

Whatever view we take on the principle of abortion, there is a general public consensus that fewer abortions taking place is a good thing, so I am concerned that the decriminalisation of abortion would lead to the normalisation of late-term—or at least later-term—abortions, and have a chilling effect on the broader discussions about the viability and value of life.

I am coming to the end of my speech—we have three hours for the debate, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. Given the ready availability of pills by post without the requirement for an in-person consultation—which I believe is critical—the bitter irony of the decriminalisation of abortion is that it would place women at greater risk of harm. Not all choices should be entirely free or unfettered. We accept limits to our choice in many areas of law, and this one should be no exception. The criminal law on abortion safeguards women by providing clarity and a regulatory framework. Decriminalisation does the opposite, and in a way that is much more damaging and much more critical to the debate. Decriminalisation is not a simple matter of choice and autonomy. If we reduce the debate to that, we will fail in our duty to protect women and the babies.

I urge hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the principle—which, as I said, may be very different from my own—to consider the full ramifications of decriminalisation of abortion. It will harm more than help, and those who suffer will be women who endanger their own safety and that of the unborn children, who are equally important. We must protect both equally. Decriminalisation of abortion would fail to accomplish that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels like that. I hope she heard my words to her colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have always—it is on the record—defended the right of people who disagree with abortion to make their argument. I have always—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have always defended the right of people to disagree. What I do not do is defend the right of people who disagree to harass.

Let me talk about another example of where abortion access is under threat. We fought tooth and nail in the previous Parliament to put safe access zones to abortion clinics in place. We absolutely uphold people’s religious liberties, but no one has a religious right to pray anywhere they like that trumps the human right of privacy that a woman has when she has made the choice to have an abortion to go to a clinic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) set out the consequences of that.

Nothing in new clause 1 would protect buffer zones. New clause 20 would explicitly protect buffer zones, because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has intervened to protect buffer zones as part of human rights legislation. Some may argue, “Don’t worry: because she made that ruling and fought that case for us in Northern Ireland, we can apply it to England and Wales.” New clause 20 would put that beyond doubt. It is therefore not some untried and untested mechanism for defending abortion; it is about recognising that, if we want to protect abortion access, we have to repeal the relevant legislation and then say what happens next.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will of course give way—the hon. Gentleman gave way to me.

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot let the occasion pass without putting it on the record that silent prayer is very much just that: a silent prayer between the individual and their God. Nothing is ever said. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is totally erroneous for her to say that a silent prayer is wrong.

[Ms Creasy]

I understand the position that the hon. Member is taking. Many of us believe that somebody standing at an abortion clinic and feeling the need to pray there, rather than in a church or 150 metres away from the abortion clinic, is not silently praying but intervening on the privacy of the person accessing an abortion zone. That is why this Parliament—[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman chuntering. I want to make some progress, but let me be very clear: those of us who recognise that safe access zones balance rights in the best way recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in continuing to attack them. The vice-president of the United States has sought to attack our nation’s ability to protect women’s access to abortion clinics via safe access zones. The threat that we are facing is therefore not theoretical.

Victims and Courts Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will say later why the Government and I reject the idea that antisocial behaviour is low level and therefore outside the purview of the Victims’ Commissioner; that is why we are extending the commissioner’s powers. I welcome the support that the measure has received from the hon. Gentleman and others across the House. I hope we can all work collaboratively on the measure to ensure that it takes proper effect.

The Bill will also require the commissioner to produce a new independent assessment each year, providing much-needed scrutiny of how public agencies meet their duties under the victims code. It will ensure that victims’ rights are being upheld and, where they are not, that action is taken.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill; what she has outlined is exactly what we wanted to hear. My constituent has asked me this question. During the restoration of justice, the victim often feels isolated from the process. Does the Minister believe that if the Bill is to be effective, communication is key? Does the Bill go far enough in ensuring an obligation to communicate? I know she wants that communication, but I ask for my constituent, and to satisfy my conscience.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member makes an important point about communication with victims, and I will come a little later to the measures in that area that will enhance the system and provide a good foundation for us to build on, so that victims have the information that they need to get through criminal justice system processes, and are kept updated once an offender has served their sentence and is on licence in the community.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Just once more—it is hard to say no to the hon. Gentleman!

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister ensure that the legislation also applies to Northern Ireland? I understand that it does, but I meant to ask that question before; apologies for not doing so.

[Shabana Mahmood]

These matters are devolved in Northern Ireland—the Bill applies to England and Wales—but we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. I know that the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), will engage with counterparts to ensure that, where possible, arrangements reflect each other. We all have an interest in ensuring that the whole system, across the UK, is as strong as it can be.

The Bill will also ensure greater accountability for how agencies respond to victims of antisocial behaviour. As the House will know, that is an area in which many victims are not heard and not supported. Incidents are too often dismissed as minor or low-level crimes, when they have a devastating effect on local communities and on people’s lives. The Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to request information from local authorities, and from social housing providers, which sit outside the criminal justice system, so that the commissioner can better understand how victims of antisocial behaviour are being supported. Those measures are an important first step towards rebuilding victims’ confidence in the system, ensuring that their voices are heard, and leaving public bodies in no doubt that they will be held to account when they fall short.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got her chronology the wrong way round. There was a newspaper article because the Ministry of Justice had published a public statement as soon as it became aware of the full extent of the threat. It did that to protect legal aid providers and their clients, the end users. We have been utterly transparent. It is not following the newspaper article; the hon. Lady has her facts exactly the wrong way round.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her detailed answers and reassurances. The legal aid system is an imperative cog in the wheels of justice, and this attack on it must be seen as an attack on justice as well. Can the Minister say whether the attack encompasses legal aid details from the entirety of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What discussions have taken place with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, where people will have justified fears about their addresses being leaked to those who may harm them? What support is available to those who are now in fear, such as domestic abuse victims?

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan]

Every week, I hear from grieving families who are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless. Their stories are heartbreaking. Many do not know where to turn. They call their councillors and their MPs, and they are right to do so. When the system fails them, it is our job to listen, to act and to advocate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

On coroner services in the west midlands, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) before the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; he and I were in a debate in Westminster Hall just this afternoon. Coroner services, whether it be in the west midlands or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, are an issue. I told the hon. Gentleman what my intervention was going to be, by the way, and he okayed it; I was happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are only three full-time coroners in Northern Ireland. With the historic legacy of the troubles taking up time and the coroner stepping outside his remit, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in both his constituency and mine, the need for the coroner must be focused on and that they should be available to those who need them most? Furthermore, does he agree that there is a need to increase the number of coroners in order to allow families to have the facts of the case when they need them, to allow the healing to begin?

[Ayoub Khan]

I really appreciate the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who makes a poignant point. The service does require modernisation. In Birmingham and Solihull we have one senior coroner, two area coroners and seven assistant coroners to look after a population of approximately 1.5 million, according to the 2021 census. In comparison, in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, there are four coroners for 1.9 million people, which is simply not enough.

As I said, these families are not just dealing with the loss of a family member, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, it is important that all communities form a bond with their local coroner, but, ultimately, if the coroner and their staff are limited in numbers, there is always going to be a backlog and delay in processing the very important work of identifying the cause of death and then releasing the deceased.

Let us look at the facts. Across England and Wales, more than 6,000 coroner cases were pending for more than a year—four times higher than in 2017. Birmingham and the west midlands were among the worst affected. Our population is growing. Our communities are increasingly diverse, with more residents who require specific religious considerations, yet the infrastructure has not kept pace. The Government’s funding commitments have not matched rising everyday demand. We do not have enough pathologists and we do not have enough administrative support. We do not have the essential tools that could make a significant difference—tools such as MRI and CT scanning machines, which are used for the sole purpose of conducting non-invasive autopsies. However, we do have access to these facilities, but they are not dedicated to the coroner. It is by taking advantage of technological innovations such as those that we can make life easier for families whose faith prohibits invasive post-mortem procedures. With the right equipment, we can respect those beliefs and still get the data required by law.

Another major issue is the absence of weekend services. In most parts of the country, coroners offices operates Monday to Friday, but people do not stop dying on Fridays. Deaths occur every day. When services close for the weekend, a death that occurs on Friday night may not be processed until Monday or even Tuesday. For families who are religiously obligated to bury their loved ones immediately, the delay is deeply distressing. Introducing weekend operation for coroner and burial services is not a luxury but a necessity. In Birmingham we did have a coroner who would give up his time on weekends, but that has stopped.

To speak plainly about another area of concern, MPs are increasingly being told not to contact a coroner’s office on behalf of constituents. We are told that it constitutes interference. In fact, that is set out in the code of conduct for parliamentarians. I reject that completely. MPs are not asking coroners to change their findings or trying to influence investigations. We are not questioning their professionalism or their judgment. We are simply asking for speed, efficiency and compassion. To suggest that this is interference misunderstands both the role of an MP and the seriousness of the issue. We must be allowed to advocate for our constituents.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. We are all of different faiths, whether Christian or other faiths, and some people have no faith. A person’s religion must be paramount when it comes to the coroner’s work, and the coroner must ensure that a burial can take place within the period of time that the person’s faith indicates. I would have thought that is something that cannot be ignored under human rights and equality. Perhaps there is another way of looking at that.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is significant case law that identifies this specific need, and coroners do abide by that and try their best to assist when expediency is required because of religion. Unfortunately, it comes back to the bottleneck, where coroners want to do the best they can within the structure in which they are working, but they are limited by resources. That comes down to issues such as staffing.

When families have nowhere to turn, it should not be inappropriate for parliamentarians to contact the coroner to assist the suffering or grieving family. Will the Minister please review the part of the code of conduct for parliamentarians that relates to communicating with a coroner?

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are committed to getting this right. The early release scheme that the previous Government put in place did not have the same exceptions as our early release scheme did for the sort of offenders that the hon. Gentleman draws attention to, but these matters are very difficult. The most important thing is ensuring that we have a criminal justice system that works. We need to be able to lock up dangerous people, and those who do really bad things. When we came into government, the situation was that we might not be able to maintain that ability. We have had to take actions that we would far rather not take in order to keep the system going.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is a very decent person, and he and I have been friends for many years, but I must ask this question, which I hope I can put in the way that I wish to. I really struggle to understand the rationale behind allowing a criminal to consider their options and work out whether what they intend to do is worth an additional 28 days in jail, or allowing a person to weigh up whether breaking a restraining or non-molestation order is worth a month in prison. Criminals need to fear that if they break the law again, it will be worse for them. How do the Minister and the Department think that the policy will disincentivise repeat offending?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have made clear the exceptions that apply to this tight, fixed-term recall alteration. The management of people in the community will be risk-assessed, as always. If the view is that a different approach needs to be taken, it will be taken.

Protection of Prison Staff

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers—he always comes to the Chamber with the answers we hope for. It was shocking to read of the violent attack on prison staff by the Southport killer, which highlights the need for greater supervision of, and security measures for, prisoners. What steps will the Government take to tighten the prison privileges system? Take away their parole, for example. Take away all their privileges. If that does not work, put them in solitary confinement. Those evil killers have forfeited any right to privileges in this world. I think it is time that the Government took steps in the right direction by ensuring that high-risk offenders do not have access to freedoms that could be used to seriously harm those who risk their lives working in our prisons.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is part of a police investigation at the moment, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. He makes a good point about the management of very dangerous people in our prisons. That is why we rely on the expertise and experience of prison staff, officers and governors.

British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I am glad to be able to speak in the Adjournment today about an issue of painful neglect that affects 80 British families each year, yet remains largely hidden from public and parliamentary view. We have all said goodbye to a loved one at an airport, wishing them well for their holiday, or their time abroad for work or study. If any of us was to receive a phone call saying that our loved one had been murdered when they were in the UK, that phone call would be devastating enough, but to receive that phone call when a loved one is thousands of miles away—murdered across an ocean, in a country that speaks another language—is a whole different world of pain and confusion.

Every year, British citizens are killed in acts of violence abroad. In many cases, their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for the loss of a loved one, all while faced with the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system. They do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government—all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.

Tonight, I want to be a voice for those families, through the Murdered Abroad campaign, a group of bereaved relatives who have turned their grief into a powerful call for change. They are not asking for special treatment—in fact, they want the complete opposite. They are asking for fairness and compassion, and the kind of structured, statutory support that families receive when tragedy strikes on British soil.

In January this year, I met a family in Maidenhead, who discussed their story of their son’s murder in America in 2009. They managed to contact the consulate, but the time difference was tricky, and there was not much help for the family with communicating. After many calls, they realised they were not really getting anywhere, so they had to take matters into their own hands, even going so far as to arrange the repatriation of their son’s body in the absence of support from their Government.

When a British citizen is murdered abroad, their family is plunged not only into grief and shock, but into a crisis made worse by the overwhelming burden of having to navigate unfamiliar systems with a lack of support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on a subject that is very important to many. Between 2010 and 2015, more than 250 British nationals were murdered abroad, in Pakistan, Tunisia, France and the United States, which he mentioned. We often see horror stories online—cases in which an individual has been found but not yet identified. Does he agree that, in the case of British nationals, there is more that the Foreign Office could do to ensure that all efforts are made to alert the family before any news is released to the media? Sometimes the media need to be sensitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The point I made to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) was that families sometimes find out about these cases on social media or somewhere else. I would have thought that whenever the police in whatever country become aware that someone was a British citizen, they would immediately contact the embassy and make it aware of what had happened so that it could be the conduit. Could that be done? We have had a similar case in Northern Ireland, although I will not go into any details because it is an ongoing case. There is an important role for the consulate and the British embassy to play.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It should be the appropriate protocol for the police to be informed first of an incident in a country, with the families informed by the police in that country or by the police in our country via Interpol, as I said. But, in today’s modern age, sadly that is not always the case. It is not fair to the families that they find out second or third hand. An appropriate protocol should be in place. That should be how it happens. Sadly, we know that is not always the case.

The Osman family did not receive, and did not know that they could receive, a trained family liaison officer in Wales, and they were largely ignored by Spanish police. When they visited Spain shortly afterwards, they had to describe the situation on a mobile phone using Google Translate—we have heard that about similar cases—and there was extensive miscommunication throughout the ordeal between the family and external authorities, costing valuable investigation time and prolonging their agony.

There were many other issues with obtaining Nathan’s case file and coroner’s report, which the family believe contain a number of discrepancies. No one should have to endure what they went through. Losing a young family member in such horrific circumstances is a pain that few of us can truly understand, and they were retraumatised through various errors and miscommunications.

In the pictures and videos shared with my team by the family, it is easy to see what a dedicated father Nathan was to his young children and how much he is still loved and missed every day. I thank Alannah, Lee, Liz and Jonathan for sharing Nathan’s story with me, and I thank hon. Members for sharing their stories with me this evening. I am sure the whole House will join me in sharing all our condolences with everyone impacted.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than when it is a personal one, as his was, and he did it very well. It is never easy for someone to tell their own story, but well done to him.

This is an important debate. As the hon. Member said at the beginning, the system in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, Scotland and Wales, but the principle of what the scheme is trying to achieve is the same. I thank him for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for debate. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I very much look forward to her reply to all the questions we will be asking her.

There is no excuse in today’s society for crime, especially violent crime, which can devastate lives both physically and mentally. We cannot always see the impact of crimes on somebody when we look at them, because some people hold their emotions in check internally. We often feel that we hear horrific stories every day of people who have fallen victim to violent crime. As the hon. Member stated, many will be aware that the legislation for Northern Ireland is slightly different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be great to add a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, and I wish to do so.

The scheme provides compensation to victims and, in addition, to the families of loved ones who have since passed away due to the impact of violent crime. The hon. Member talked about the scheme that applies in England, Scotland and Wales; in Northern Ireland we have slightly different credentials for the scheme. According to the latest figures available, roughly 12,000 to 15,000 applications for criminal injuries compensation are received annually in Northern Ireland, so the number of people who go through the process every year is quite large. Historically, around 60% of those claims have been successful, while 40% were declined due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.

It is important to note that victims are often unaware of the grounds on which they can apply. With this speech I wish to raise awareness and ensure that those who do not know their rights or what they can do are able to apply as a result. One of the big issues is that the perpetrator does not actually have to be charged with anything for someone to be able to claim compensation. That is important to note. If someone feels threatened or has been abused visually, even if not physically, a compensation system is in place. Applications can still be made two years after the incident occurred, provided it was not reasonable for an application to be made at the time. It is important to record these elements of the system.

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

On the issue of entitlement, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those who feel badly affected by some abuse or attack know and understand the system, but at the same time the system has to bear down on the very small number of people who abuse the system, in deference to those who are quite entitled to and should seek compensation because of the attacks they have suffered?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the point that some people abuse the system. I have to say that I have not come across any, to be fair, so I cannot make a statement about that, but it is in the very nature of any system that there are always those who try to take advantage of it.

There have been ongoing concerns about and issues with the compensation scheme as it is. Many state that there is a complete lack of awareness about the scheme in general, and people are unaware that something like it even exists. I suppose my main question to the Minister is: what will be done to highlight the system to those who qualify, and to encourage those who should apply to do just that? This has to be addressed through raising awareness—“Know your rights” is how I would put it. People who have gone through harm are deserving of something. For those who have lost a loved one as a result of violent crime, no amount of money will take that pain away, but they are deserving, based on the trauma they have experienced.

Many victims may just wish for it all to go away, and I suspect that some may not want to pursue a claim even if they qualify. One of the big issues is that the process is undoubtedly traumatic for many. Having to relive their experience during an application can be retraumatising, as they have to live through the horror—the memories, the trauma and the pain—twice.

I want to talk about sexual or domestic violence crimes, and those reliving the passing of a loved one. In 2023, it was ruled that victims of non-touching sexual abuse are eligible for compensation under the CICS. Many people—especially young people—have fallen victim to that crime and have gone on to feel its effects for years and years. It is inconceivable how those young people deal with what happened to them. I look to the Minister for clarity. She has always been positive in her answers to those who have raised these matters, and I know she is very much on top of this subject, so I look forward to her response. The CICS applies in such cases in England, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister kindly see whether, through the Department of Justice, our legislation in Northern Ireland can be strengthened along the same lines?

It is a sad reality that so many people are victims of crime that leaves a devastating impact, physically and mentally. The effects are the same for people of all ages. No amount of money can bring back a loved one or remove the mental torment of the past, but something can be done to ease the burden on so many. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitment to doing just that—it was never in doubt, by the way, but I look forward to her confirming that—not just here in England but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.