Fraud Strategy 2026-29

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance]

They are good things and I will come on to them later, but we do need more support for vulnerable adults and young people—something I will also come on to.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We need to get a balance. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and we must be incredibly careful not to let the state overreach in the process. Does he agree that a law-abiding citizen should be able to walk into their local bank and spend, withdraw or transfer their own hard-earned money without being treated like a criminal suspect? We must ensure that the fraud strategy does not become a nanny-state charter that forces ordinary people to prove to a bank clerk why they want to spend their own money.

[Adam Dance]

I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I will come on to talk about why banks should have more face-to-face contact with people instead of sending them online.

It is even simple, little things. One constituent was scammed into paying a clean air zone charge, which does not exist, because it popped up on a sponsored page on Google. Another agreed to send Amazon vouchers to their elderly mother, but they actually sent them to a scammer.

In April, in response to this problem, the Government came forward with the 2026 to 2029 fraud strategy. They have committed £250 million to the plan over the next three years. There is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishment of the fraud victims charter and the new Report Fraud scheme to replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless.

Historical Forced Adoption

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I think it is really important that we learn those lessons and draw where we can on the examples of other apologies and the legacy. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is not just the initial injustice; there are all the further injustices at almost every twist and turn—those who were adopted being told when they try to find their parents, “It wouldn’t be good for your mother if you tried to find her,” or that they cannot have access to their own records, which would have helped with their identity and sense of worth. All of these injustices build on the initial injustice, and they are not all so historical, either; some of them are much more contemporary. If we are really going to deal with this, we have to recognise that with our eyes wide open.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for his very careful and softly spoken words and for the apology. An apology, while vital for healing, is only a first step; it must be followed by tangible, compassionate action. We owe the survivors nothing less than the total truth and structural redress, as well as our compassion for a lifetime of sometimes feeling unloved and unwanted, when that could not be further from the truth. We cannot give their years or their relationships back, but we can be honest and step up. What concrete steps are being taken to guarantee streamlined, free access to original birth records? What co-operation is there with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that survivors across the entirety of the United Kingdom can and will receive the same standard of tracing services and therapeutic support?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: there has to be tangible action, and it has to be streamlined, as he described. We need to work with the devolved Administrations. What we cannot do now is add a further injustice to all the injustices we have been describing, by doing anything that makes it harder from hereon in for people to get the support and information they need. We need to action what we are saying today, and we will do so.

MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who often brings forward subjects that are close to all of our hearts. I would like to share some personal experience, and I think other Members will want to do the same. This is an important and complex issue that depends greatly on context. While I agree with what he and others have said, he mentioned some things in his speech that honestly concern me greatly, and I would gently say that we should look at individual cases.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford since 2010, I am deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that to deliver for my constituents is my priority in this place. When I became an MP in 2010, I decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up my other jobs. I am not better than anybody else—

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.

[Jim Shannon]

I have moved the mic a bit closer, so hopefully that will catch my words. When I became an MP in 2010, I was also a councillor; I served on Ards borough council for 26 years. I was also a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years. I would have loved to stay on as a councillor, because I loved the work and that was where my heart was, but I realised that that was not going to happen. I would not be able to jump on a plane and come across to Westminster and be home in time for a meeting that night. Looking at the physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those positions. I did hold all three for two months, but that was during the summer months when there were fewer meetings. I also had my own business, which I started in 1985. I gifted that business to my son. Personally speaking, this is now my one job, and it is all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. None the less, I do not believe that all Members should automatically be required to give up outside employment if it has no impact on their ability to do their job here.

Members should be permitted to consider carefully whether any additional role could compromise their ability to carry out effectively their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups? I say this respectfully and kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything and therefore I will not say anything more specific; that would be wrong, but I hope that having other jobs would not unnecessarily influence a Member’s capability to do the job that they are committed to here.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the issue of any complexity adversely affecting a Member’s ability in the House, does my hon. Friend agree that while we all should be open and transparent and the register should be kept up to date, as the mover of the motion said, the final arbiter on all these issues has to be the voters? When the voters decide that a small number of MPs may be getting extraordinarily large, unacceptably large, sums of money, they decide at the election that they do not want that and they replace them with someone else.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes. Ultimately, our electorate makes that decision. That applies in any sphere and to any action that an MP may carry out. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

In my view, a complete restriction on second jobs would be an unfair limitation on Members. What do I mean by that? I agree with almost 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said; I just think that sometimes we need to look at the thing in a bigger way. I fully recognise that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions; there has to be a declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. Wherever the things are, there must be an explanation, and it must fall within the rules of the House. Any changes made to the rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the House of Commons code of conduct should provide clear guidance for Members and constituents alike.

Many Members bring to the House valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests. They bring knowledge. We all do that from our walks of life—individually, from the people we have represented over the years or perhaps just from the social circle that we move in. Maintaining links with professions when it is appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of parliamentary debates, improve the scrutiny of legislation and ensure that Members remain connected to the experiences and challenges faced by people outside our offices and Westminster. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for Leeds East referred to—those experiences, and those interactions with our constituents.

On a personal note, my job and my business was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak, and that is a fact, and it reared my family. It kept my wife at home to look after the children. We got a good holiday every year, and it paid the mortgage. We did well out of it, but way back when I was doing that—I have to cast my mind back—I was up at 5 am, went home and showered and was in the office for 9. My employee would carry on the run for the rest of the day. In all those years I was in the Assembly, we did that, but when I was elected to Westminster, I recognised that that was just never going to happen, so I gifted the business to my son. It was no longer a matter of nipping home after the run. I could not just nip home and go from Newtownards to London. It would be impossible to do the job well. I was able to do both back then, but I could never do that again; it just cannot happen. My duty was and should always be to my Strangford constituents. That is how it must be, and how it has been since 2010.

Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance. The hon. Member for Leeds East referred to confidence, and I also think that is a critical factor. Transparency and accountability are two issues that must be at the heart of any reforms, but I think that public confidence may be the key issue. Constituents should have confidence that Members’ outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place.

I want to also underline the fact that we pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here and carry out their most basic functions. If we are to change anything, perhaps it should be their eligibility for election.

I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, in so far as they still perform their roles in this House. I always think of that old adage, “If you want something done, give it to a busy person.” Perhaps we should allow Members to strike that balance. I have tried to strike that balance. I try to live my life in such a way that I practise what I preach. I can only do the one job; I cannot do any more, and I recognise that. Although I agree with 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said, I do think it is better that Members should make their own choice.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

[Jim Shannon]

Immoral.

[Dr Chowns]

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer to the question put forward by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Some companies are already setting aside a number of places—a quota—for ladies for the jobs they hope to introduce women to. Does the Minister think that it is time to set a quota for companies? We recognise some of the good work that companies do, but a quota for places for ladies might persuade many companies to go the extra mile.

[Liz Kendall]

I think the most effective way to get change is to show the results that have been achieved by the women who produce the brilliant science and technology that helps to create innovations and bring in the cash. Women founders of tech companies get only 2p in every £1 in venture capital funding, yet on average they present 35% higher returns. If companies want better science and tech and a better economy, they had better get more women on board.

Cabinet Office

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens.

We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his introduction and his wise words, ever mindful of modern warfare and the way it is going, and the changes that the Government and we as a nation need to be prepared for. When it comes to resilience and drone technology and how to use that to the betterment and the safety and security of this country, does he believe that we need to be at the top of that tree to ensure that we can protect our people across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Matt Western]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The nature of our security is so multifaceted now in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago. Globally, we are beginning to get our heads around—I am sure the Government recognise this—how we need to pivot and reset ourselves into a very different defence and security posture, because our defence is as much on our mobile phone and our laptops, and to our way of life and our democracy, as it is at our borders, and that is crucial.

My Committee was encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government believe that they are on track to hit the target of 1.5% of GDP on security and resilience by 2035 by 2027—well ahead of time. But they have also been evasive on exactly what the spend will entail. Like any target, there is a risk of money being merely shuffled from one pot to another—an administrative exercise rather than genuine additional funding. My Committee recommended that the spending is prioritised on investment in systems that can help build long-term resilience, in addition to spending on maintenance of basic civil infrastructure.

When we questioned the Minister, we sought to clarify what new resilience projects and capabilities the 1.5% would entail. We were given, I am afraid to say, only vague answers. Disappointingly, the Government’s response to our report on the national security strategy failed to elucidate much further. We recognise that there are reasons for being protective about certain information and not disclosing too much detail, but we seek more specificity in exactly how the Government are making critical infrastructure in the UK more resilient through this spending.

In fact, I recently met the high commissioner of Canada who explained that they are investing hundreds of millions in large-scale infrastructure projects in their part of the High North, be it railways, road networks or deep sea ports. They are all planned to boost resilience across the nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the opening of the Ministry of Defence indoor testing facility in Swindon; it is great news. He is right that it is vital that the civil service opportunities that it provides are strategically located, partly through the relocation of roles, but it is also crucial to ensure that this fantastic facility harnesses the skills and talents of his constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very supportive of the Government’s tactic and policy. Back home in Northern Ireland, the relocation of civil service roles has been very important, but there is an issue that concerns me, and my constituents have asked me about it. Civil servants who are settled in, for example, Dundonald, outside Belfast, might then relocate to Londonderry or somewhere like Newry, many miles away, but they have a commitment to the communities they live in. Those who have permanent jobs and have been working somewhere for many years have children at school, a home and a mortgage, and a local social circle. Sometimes relocation is just not acceptable or even possible for them. Could the Minister indicate that there will be fair play for civil servants who have shown many years of commitment, that they will not have to move, and that there will be provision made for them?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We have to get the balance right. We have many fantastic civil servants embedded in their communities and delivering for them, which is great, but I am sure that he will agree with me on the importance of the opportunity that civil service roles offer to stimulate growth in regions across our nations. I am sure that he would support that. I look forward to continuing this discussion with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

SMEs, individuals and communities should look at the national advice that is published and check on gov.uk/protect, so that they can take the advice. It is simple and it is up there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, a 2024 study found that only around one fifth of direct public procurement spend across the wider public sector is awarded to small businesses. Given the reliance on smaller businesses in Northern Ireland, what steps will the Minister take with Cabinet colleagues to improve their access to public procurement?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

We are taking a number of steps to improve SME access to Government procurement, and I outlined those earlier. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him about the specific measures we are taking in Northern Ireland, but we are working across the United Kingdom to ensure that our procurement budget does everything possible to support SMEs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank Pride in North Cumbria and Cumbria Pride for their brilliant work. My hon. Friend is right to say that Pride events are a wonderful asset to the community. Given recent decisions to defund Pride events, this is a lesson that Reform councils clearly need to learn. I can confirm that this Labour Government will ban abusive conversion practices, and we will be publishing our draft Bill very soon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am mindful of the question asked by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and the Minister’s response. What protection has the Minister put in place for those who actively and honestly seek help and prayerful support, and who are seeking guidance in churches and through Christian and faith-based groups? It is always important that people have an opportunity to seek that guidance. I know the Minister will be committed to that, and I would be very pleased to hear her answer.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I look forward to discussing this matter further with him when we have published our draft Bill. Let me be very clear that what we are talking about is criminalising abuse that should happen to nobody, anywhere, in any situation or setting.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.

At the outset, I would like to bear witness to those who have fought for justice for so long, and who have given evidence to the inquiry. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson).

I am aware that many Members who would like to be here are in Makerfield for the by-election, so I may ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have a lot to cover, because a lot of people are missing. The Government are about to lay another set of orders before Parliament, and the community and campaigners have demanded that we make representations on their behalf before they are laid, so I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for moving us up the list and granting us this debate in such short time.

I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for securing the funds to get the compensation process under way. I know that he takes the matter to heart, and it would be understandable if he felt slightly harshly treated, given that he has secured £9.8 billion for the compensation process, but I am sure he understands that because the community of the infected and affected have had to fight so hard for so long, and have lost many friends and relatives along the way in the face of huge opposition, they are not ready to praise anyone—not until everyone has received justice.

In his address during the service of remembrance and reflection at St Paul’s, Sir Brian Langstaff said that this catastrophe was no accident. It has been called the deadliest man-made disaster in post-war history. In the ’70s and ’80s, people knowingly gave infected products to unsuspecting patients. In the USA, the production of blood products farmed from volunteers and prisoners took off after the USA deregulated harvesting blood products. Pooling products from different people meant that entire supplies became infected. As early as 1975, “World in Action” exposed the dangers of these products. In 1983, Government experts knew of the risks of contaminated blood products. Costs meant that heat treatment to clean the products was not introduced.

In 1989, the then Government were advised to provide victims with compensation on humanitarian grounds. The Government rejected that advice on financial grounds. The Government continued to withhold information from the infected and their families. Had they been told, they could have sought medical help, and many would have avoided tragedy. The World Health Organisation expressed concern about the commercial supply of products from paid donors, but still the practice went on, and victims were kept in the dark.

Pupils at Treloar’s school were experimented on. Between 1970 and 1987, 122 pupils with haemophilia attended the school. At the time that the evidence was given to the inquiry, only 30 remained alive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that your constituent Gary Webster is one of those; another is my constituent Lee Moorey. I am pleased to say that he is still with us. Lee did not find out until he was 14 that he had been infected with HIV. He was in his 30s when he found out that he had been infected with hepatitis C, and he found out that he has hepatitis B only last year. There is no escaping the fact that, had people been under an obligation to tell the truth at the outset, many lives would have been saved.

We welcome the changes that the Government announced on 14 April this year, following the consultation that they held from October 2025 to January 2026. However, there remain concerns that some elements of the compensation system still require change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for setting the scene so well, and I am sure that everyone in the House is committed to the same objectives. The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the issues. My constituents back home face significant stress over delays, and unfair deductions when compensation is passed on to the estate of the bereaved. Does he agree that we need a timescale for the moneys to be paid out, so that all those who have experienced delays will know the timeframe? Perhaps the Minister, who is always very responsive and helpful, will come to the House regularly to update us on that before the end of this year, and certainly by the conclusion of spring 2027.

[Clive Efford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later.

There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000.

But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood.

Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing.

Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?

National Resilience

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is a privilege to lead this evening’s Adjournment debate on improving national resilience. I am also glad that the Security Minister is responding. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As we have both served in what is now the Special Forces Strike Group, albeit at different times, I know he is one of the few people in this House who has seen the sharp end of national insecurity at first hand.

It has sadly become commonplace to say that we are living through unprecedented times. The international system we have all lived under has fractured, war has broken out across multiple continents and technological upheaval and a warming planet compound to create an increasingly volatile world.

We hear repeatedly across this House that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. It is repeated so often that it risks becoming a platitude, but here is the hard question: are we actually living up to that duty here in the UK in 2026? This evening, I will set out why I believe we are falling short and, more importantly, what we might do about it and how we might build a country and citizenship resilient enough to meet the growing and interconnected number of threats to our homeland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member. Resilience is about not just defence but health. To cast the mind of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House back to the national emergency of covid-19, the report of the UK covid inquiry mentioned “fatal strategic flaws”. The NHS did not collapse, although it came close and patients often did not receive the standard of care that they were due, and that led to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Does the hon. Member not agree that serious concerns about the lack of the health service’s effective surge capacity need to be addressed in anticipation of another national health emergency and to secure national resilience in the face of medical uncertainty?

[David Reed]

The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally.

The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services.

Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun.

One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places.

We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well:

“You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.”

As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very powerfully. To those who would consider any kind of racist activity or any further criminality or disorder, my message is very simple: break the law, and get ready to face the full consequences of the law.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers, which are helpful to those of us asking questions.

I totally condemn the violence that took place in Belfast. Yesterday I stood in this place and spoke about people’s right to protest peacefully and to have their Government take account of their fears and their views. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I can say that not one stone was thrown by the hundreds and hundreds of people who stood by the cenotaph in Newtownards last night. Women with zimmer frames, young mothers with children and families stood in companionable silence, and the PSNI has confirmed that no thuggery whatsoever took place.

Those people did what they needed to do to have their voice heard. Now it is time for the Government to do what they need to do, and listen to and act for those decent and reasonable people who are not thugs and who have valid fears. Will the Minister confirm that the views of the reasonable thousands throughout the Province who quietly asked for their voice to be heard will not be ignored as a result of the loud actions of some terrible thugs?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully, and with huge experience of these matters. I completely agree with his central point that we must not allow the violent criminality and disorder that we have seen to drown out the important but peaceful voices of those who, entirely understandably, have concerns and express anger about the situation. He was right to make that point, and I can give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take it.