Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place.

Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people.

It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar.

Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced.

Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know.

We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly.

We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics.

Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one.

On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way.

Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them.

That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period?

Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. There have been incidents in the last year, which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of, where women have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. They have been brought in illegally and when they are sometimes able to escape from their captors or kidnappers—their pimps or whatever they call them—they then find themselves in an unbelievable circumstance where they are here illegally. However, that is not by their own choice but through the coercion of others. Does the hon. Lady feel that there must be some methodology to help those people who are victims and find themselves in unbelievable circumstances?

[Kirsty Blackman]

There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation.

We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support.

There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear.

Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk.

We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks.

I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria.

The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I say a big “thank you” to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate. She has—I say this with great kindness—a wonderful, warm heart. I always enjoy her contributions, and today is another example of just that.

It is always a joy to see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is a good and dear friend to us all. I know that he understand the issues incredibly well. It is in his very nature to endeavour to give us the answers he can, within the confines of his departmental brief.

Members will have no doubt about my views on immigration, about which I have great concerns. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, so I understand that many people across the world flee persecution and human rights abuses, and look for a country of sanctuary. I believe that our country can be that sanctuary, but I have genuine concerns about the abuse of the asylum system—my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to some of them.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on straightforward illegal immigration or on protected characteristics, part of the problem is that there are concerns in wider society about the United Kingdom’s stagnant economy and expanding population. That lead to protests and to demands that we close our borders so that we do not further exacerbate the problems of a growing population and a shrinking economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is absolutely right—I will refer to those matters shortly. There is no use saying that what he refers to is not happening or that there is a small number of asylum seekers—that is not the case. The images of small boats show overwhelmingly that they carry young men. They are more economic migrants—most of them look extremely fit and well. They are illegal immigrants coming by the backdoor to seek greater help in the benefits system, rather than the families I want to stand up for, who are fleeing oppression and threat to life.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech; he is doing an excellent job. Does he agree that people are concerned about spiralling costs? Asylum seeker accommodation costs are set to rise to £15.3 billion across the UK over the next decade, including from £100 million to £400 million in Northern Ireland. When our services are already at breaking point, that is frustrating people. Surely the Government have a duty to look after the people who are born and raised here before committing to that spend.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is right. I know that the Minister will consider all these matters, and I hope that he will give us an answer to that question. I can understand why so many are outraged that we would take winter fuel payments away from our own hard-working pensioners while doing nothing about migrants who seem to want an easy way of life. People have that perception about those who come along on plastic boats from Calais to Dover. I want us to put those migrants aside very quickly.

I try to be compassionate and understanding in everything I do in this House—although I am no better than anybody else—but I see a very clear difference between an economic migrant who wants to use the benefits system and a family who have no safe place to be. That must be highlighted. As a member of APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, Dr Huq, you will understand only too well that many Christians are persecuted in Syria and across the middle east, and in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Myanmar. All being well, on 8 January we will have a Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in Myanmar.

The previous Government had a Syrian resettlement scheme, and six Syrian families came to Newtownards. They did not have a big grasp of the language, but our community drew together and supported them. Those six families are still there. They have had children there, they have jobs, they have learned the language, they have children at school, and they have houses. They did so by their own bootstraps, so to speak, and that should be recognised as something good that happens.

I believe that the Government must make changes to the system and take a hard line, returning those young men back to France or wherever they have travelled from or through, but I have a genuine fear that these changes may prevent those who are truly in need of asylum from claiming it. By the end of 2024, 132 million people had been forced to flee their homes. I have a large number of figures here, and I do not have time to mention them all, but there are 42.7 million refugees, 5.8 million people in need of international protection and 4.4 million stateless persons. It is clear that we cannot take them all in. That is why we must have a robust system in place to provide foreign aid to help where we can and take those who specifically need our help.

We cannot and must not allow the abuse of the system to end the system in its entirety—the goodness of the system that the Minister and the Government are trying to bring in—in the same way that we do not allow the abuse of drugs to prevent doctors from using the rules and regulations to prescribe them. Across the world, there are almost 74 million internally displaced people and 8.4 million asylum seekers. Again, we cannot take them all, but we can take some—I think we have a duty to do so.

We need a fit-for-purpose system that allows those who are persecuted for their faith to find a refuge and build a life with their families, such as those Syrian families who came to Newtownards eight or nine years ago. They are integrated—part of us—and contributing to society there. They want to assimilate, become British and espouse our values. We must remind ourselves of our all-important British values of tolerance and compassion as we address this problem without literally throwing the babies out with the bathwater—or English channel water, as the case may be. I thank the Minister in anticipation of his answer. I also thank the two Opposition spokespeople, who I know will make valuable contributions. I wish you, Dr Huq, and all colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite.

This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children.

Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady—I spoke to her beforehand. It has been brought to my attention in this last period of time that there is a proportion of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are survivors of trafficking. They were brought to the UK with unresolved status and they therefore struggle to access public funds for secure accommodation. Does the hon. Lady agree that those who are here illegally, but not because of their own choices, should be able to access the necessary support to help them gain safe and secure accommodation while they figure out how to get out of the mess they are in?

[Olivia Blake]

That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness?

Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem.

Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent.

As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them.

Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits.

Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply.

In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful.

Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

As the hon. Member’s constituency borders mine, I am afraid that we see many of the same problems. The inadequacy of some of the temporary accommodation in Birmingham is not something I would ever defend. What he is seeing, therefore, does not surprise me. Safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse is part of the strategy, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already said today that we will be increasing the funding to local councils so that those victims can have access to housing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers. I know that she is in regular contact with the Minister back home in Northern Ireland and that there is a deep relationship between them. The Simon Community in Northern Ireland has revealed that, between October 2024 and March 2025, 609 households presented as homeless because of domestic violence and that 83% of them were women-led households. What assurances can the Minister give the women and girls in Northern Ireland that the new strategy, and perhaps funding, can be taken advantage of, because the statistics on violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland are horrendous and they must be treated as a matter of great urgency?

[Jess Phillips]

While the strategy that will be announced on Thursday is for England and Wales and is devolved, I take a very personal interest in the safety and security of women in every one of the UK nations and, of course, in Northern Ireland, where the statistics on murder and femicide are there for everyone to see. I will continue to work to ensure—in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—that we do more of what works and get rid of what does not. But we will have to invent and do things that people have not tried before, because around the world, not enough have cared. I will ensure that any learning is shared with our counterparts.

Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has illustrated with the story that he has related, and by citing the evidential base, how bad things are. Data from the Home Office—I checked this before the debate—shows that, as of October 2025, 53,298 migrants had breached their immigration bail or absconded from detention, which means that their whereabouts were unknown. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this only adds to the stress in our communities, including that caused to the health and housing systems, and that more must be done to find those who have illegally breached immigration bail and deport them to their countries of origin?

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will come to that point in a minute, but I completely concur.

To recap, I asked the Home Office

“what information the Department holds on the number of irregular migrants defined as absconders.”

A Minister replied:

“The requested data is not readily accessible from published statistics, and could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at a disproportionate cost.”

That was not true.

On 3 September, I asked the Home Secretary

“what estimate she has made of the number of foreign nationals who have absconded after being served with a deportation order.”

The answer, from a different Minister, was:

“The Home Office does not hold any central record of the requested information.”

That was not true.

On 24 November, I questioned the Home Office permanent secretary in the Public Accounts Committee on the number of illegal migrants who have absconded from Home Office accommodation in the past five years. I got no concise answer.

During all this, a Home Office whistleblower presented themselves with these figures, in black and white, regularly disseminated within the Home Office. The actual data is as follows: there are 736 foreign criminals in the total absconder pool for foreign national offenders. That is 736 foreign criminals who have been released from prison and then absconded before deportation. Please think about that: 736 criminals—rapists, murderers, paedophiles. They were meant for deportation but have escaped into the community—736 of them. It is a terrifying thought.

Overall, the total absconder pool stands at 53,298, largely referring to the number of illegal migrants who were once in the system and whose current whereabouts is unknown.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot tell him the motivation for any of the decisions that were made. The Prime Minister’s clear view is that the decision made by the safety advisory group was the wrong decision and that we must ensure that this does not happen again. Safety advisory groups are local groups, with local representatives. The police advise those groups on the safety of events and a licence is then given for that event. Perhaps that structure needs to be looked at, particularly if there are issues of national significance, when there may be a role of national politicians. The operational independence of the police is really important and we have to make sure that we do not ride roughshod over that. That said, we also have to get to the bottom of what happened in this case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her thoughtful answers. Last week, Chief Constable Craig Guildford told the Home Affairs Committee that the decision “was not taken lightly” and that the police had “taken a careful approach” when making the decision. Once again, I want to raise a concern about how this so-called “careful approach” made people feel and the message that it sent about exclusion. What assessment has the Minister made of the choice that was made and of the steps that should have been taken to ensure that all international football fans were treated fairly, based on correct evidence and information?

[Sarah Jones]

We have been very clear all the way through that we believe that the wrong decision was made. The message that it sent to the wider world risked being the message that Jews were not welcome in the west midlands; that is one of the most awful things that could be received by Jewish people around the world. We want to get to the bottom of why the decision was made and what we can do to ensure that this does not happen again.

Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing her personal experience as a police officer to this debate. I thank her for her service.

These new catapults have awesome power, and could easily take out your eye, Sir Desmond, or indeed other hon. Members’ eyes, and cause life-changing injuries. In fact, in my time in the army, in riots in Northern Ireland, I had them used against me; they were a gateway weapon for kids who would later graduate to the coffee jar bomb and the nail bomb.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. Every one of us can remember the stick that we cut off a tree and the inner tube of a bike that we used to make the stretch, which helped us to have the best catapult in Ballywalter—there were many people in competition. However, it seems fair to say that this specific crime goes mainly unreported; there are few records of it in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that people will ignore or walk past antisocial behaviour—not just in relation to catapults, but any ASB—because of the fear of intimidation, and that more needs to be done to encourage the official reporting of all sorts of ASB, to improve conditions on our streets and to ensure that people feel safe?

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Gentleman echoes my cry. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, in all my dealings with the community, too often it becomes a conversation of the deaf, inasmuch as people think that there is no point in reporting crime because the police will not do anything about it, and the police say, “Well, no one has reported any crime, so there’s nothing for me to do.” We must unlock that conversation of the deaf by encouraging everyone to report every crime; in cases where they are worried about intimidation, they have the opportunity to use Crimestoppers, and I commend that outlet as well.

In Spelthorne, we have a serious problem with young kids using catapults on animals. I am obliged to Inspector Matthew Walton of Spelthorne police, who has helped me a great deal in preparing this campaign. The police tell me that in Spelthorne over the past year and a half crimes involving catapults have been reported to them more than once a week. The crimes happen predominantly after schools have ended, and in 90% of cases no suspect or even person of interest is identified. Spelthorne police, to their credit, tell me that they are going back to reviewing a number of these cases to make sure that they did not miss anything the first time round and to see whether any particular patterns emerge. My constituents notice the crimes happening; sadly, they too often see the wounded and killed wildlife when they are out enjoying our green spaces and river walks.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene so well on a subject close to all our hearts. This debate is not simply about policy but about the lives of people who will be deeply affected by the impact of the proposed immigration reforms. We must navigate such reforms with care, mindful of our moral and legal obligations to those seeking refuge.

I will speak specifically about people of faith who are persecuted and have to flee to seek asylum. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I reiterate the importance of our duty to protect individuals who have fled their home countries due to violations of religious freedom and human rights. Across the world, countless individuals are forced to abandon everything they know—family, community, culture—simply because they choose to practise their faith or live their life according to their conscience.

Today, over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution or discrimination. More than 80% of the world’s population live in countries in which their freedom of religion or belief is restricted or severely restricted. The United Kingdom has long been a place of refuge for those seeking safety from oppression, including those fleeing the civil war in Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We provided not only shelter but the opportunity for individuals and families to rebuild their homes in dignity, free from the daily threats, discrimination and violence they once faced. That tradition reflects the best of our British values of compassion, justice and an unwavering commitment to human rights. As the UK has proven itself to be a leading figure in promoting freedom of religion or belief worldwide, we must ensure that those escaping persecution receive the support and protection necessary.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have also had Hongkongers in my constituency contact me about the changes, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate.

The immigration reforms come with a strengthened commitment to provide safe and legal routes for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable groups such as children. That would be a great step forward in getting rid of the criminal gangs, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more details from the Government on how these safe and legal routes will work, in order to emphasise their commitment to protect those who are genuinely in need?

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is, no doubt, listening. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the Minister will give a positive response.

We must not ignore the plight of those suffering for their faith: the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, Christians in Nigeria and the Baha’is in Iran. Faith groups in countless other countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Myanmar are subjected to unspeakable tragedies. The UK has provided lifesaving refuge to groups fleeing religious persecution through humanitarian visa routes.

When we consider genuine cases of forced displacement due to freedom of religion or belief, it is not a short-term issue. It is important to strengthen the UK’s immigration system to provide greater efficiency and fairness, but in doing so, I urge right hon. and hon. Members, and the Minister in particular, not to turn our backs on those who are targeted solely for their faith or belief. As Isaiah 1:17 states:

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Give the oppressed reason to rejoice; take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”

We must ensure that, in reforming the terms for humanitarian visas, updated and quality training is provided to decision makers so that they make the right decisions, and so that legal standards are applied correctly in any subsequent settlement decisions. Civil society and non-governmental organisations have a significant role to play in assisting with their expertise, evidence and on-the-ground insight. Their partnership is essential if we are to ensure that those fleeing genuine FoRB violations are given the protection that they so urgently need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I will come on to that detail shortly. To warn the hon. Lady in advance, however, we are in the consultation period.

Retaining a five-year settlement period for BNO visa holders provides certainty to Hongkongers and ensures that the UK continues to honour its historical commitments. The BNO route will be included in the new earned settlement framework, with those holding a BNO visa given a five year reduction from the 10-year qualifying period.

The new mandatory requirements for settlement are basic requirements that we think are reasonable for people to meet if they settle here, but we are interested in views on whether certain groups should be exempt from them. I stress that no decisions have been made on that, but I have listened to hon. Members today. We are consulting on the transitional arrangements for those who are here, such as vulnerable groups and those within the BNO route.

We are also consulting on the English language levels that a number of hon. Members have spoken about today. Several hon. Members made a strong argument about assets versus income, which will be taken into consideration when making these decisions, as will the possibility of extending the route for those born after 1997. I am also interested in the survey mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe that was completed by 5,000 people, and I would like to see that over the next 12 weeks before these decisions are made. I have taken away a number of questions, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race). I am keen to go dragon boating with the community to listen and learn more from them—perhaps at some point over the next 12 weeks. A number of other points have been made and repeated, all of which have been taken away for consideration.

The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Together with our partners and allies, the UK stands in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked, illegal and premeditated war. I am proud that the British people have shown incredible generosity to the Ukrainian people, opening their homes to those seeking sanctuary. Since the launch of the Ukraine schemes, the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme and the Ukraine permission extension scheme.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for the positivity of his replies. His commitment is very clear. I asked about persecuted Christians; in the few minutes that he has left, can he assure us that protecting them is also part of Government policy?

[Mike Tapp]

I apologise, but I did not actually hear most of that. May I have that intervention again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Of course. I talk incredibly fast, so I will try to slow down. I asked about the Government’s concessions for people who are persecuted across the world. It is really important to have those concessions, so that Christians or people of any religious faith know that if they want somewhere to go, the United Kingdom is available. I need that reassurance, if the Minister does not mind.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them.

I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission. That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course.

I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times. We will reform the application of article 8 by setting out a clear framework, which will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK who do not fall within our family policies.

On humanitarian visas more widely, this country has a proud history of providing protection, and we continue to welcome refugees and people in need through our safe and legal routes. However, it is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. That is why, as set out in the asylum policy statement, we are developing new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution from around the world, in line with the capacity of UK communities to support new refugees.

Bike Theft: Loughborough

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of bike theft in Loughborough.

Thank you for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I raised the important issue of bike theft in the main Chamber a few weeks ago, when the Minister kindly provided me with an overview of what her Department is doing to address this incredibly important issue. I thank her and the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak and ask more about it today.

Motorbike theft is a scourge of my constituency, threatening the basic sense of security that people should enjoy. People worry that one day they will wake up unable to get to work, and their concern and frustration is on the rise as criminals act with impunity. Every person in our community and across the country deserves to feel safe, and that starts with giving the police more powers to tackle crime, getting more officers on the street to prevent antisocial behaviour, and working with the local community to stop bike theft for good.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He has referred to the stats in his own area. The Police Service of Northern Ireland notes that the number of motorcycles or scramblers recovered by owners in Northern Ireland is relatively low: for example, in 2022, only 30 out of 136 were recovered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while the theft statistics are fairly high, the recovery statistics are really low? He underlined the need for the police to have more powers; perhaps the Minister could indicate what those powers might be. Will the Minister give any advice to the regional Administrations to make sure that we tackle the issue better together?

[Dr Sandher]

It is fair to say that bike theft is a scourge across our nations and islands. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

The issue of motorbike theft in Loughborough was brought to my attention during my campaign, and the full scale of the problem has become clearer through time. I will mention some constituents who came to me about this issue: Sarah Staples, whose husband was followed home in broad daylight by criminals whose sole intention was to steal his motorbike, and Stephen Hughes, who also raised bike theft with me. When I asked about the issue in my constituency, I heard story after story of bike theft and attempted bike theft.

Across the country, an average of 59 motorbikes are stolen every single day. That is 21,000 motorbikes and mopeds this year alone—thefts from driveways, back gardens and even locked garages. Criminals are acting brazenly, without care for the consequences. One in five bikers will have their vehicle stolen in their lifetime—that is 11 times more likely than for car owners. The culprits are also far less likely to be caught. It is not just in the case of motorbikes that the rise in theft statistics is worrying: a 30% rise in e-bike ownership means a new lucrative target for thieves who can cash in on vehicles that are hard to trace and quick to resell.

When I raised this issue with my constituents and put it out on social media, the post received thousands of views; tens of constituents came back with cases of stolen bikes, and dozens more with stories of attempted thefts. Several people spoke about how motorbike thefts were becoming so common that it was almost impossible for them to insure their bikes. Let us imagine someone not being able to insure their car because it was at risk of getting stolen—this debate would be taking place in the main Chamber, not Westminster Hall—but this issue is still very serious for those who are affected.

We know that motorcycle theft is driven mostly by organised gangs. Some opportunists steal mopeds and scooters for short-term use and recklessly abandon them by the wayside. Others target high-value vehicles for resale, export or dismantling. Many openly boast about their criminal activities on local community forums and social media, making a mockery of those who cannot stop them and those whose bikes and possessions are stolen from them.

One constituent told me about their scooter being taken from the forecourt of a petrol station. They were too scared to intervene because of how threatening the people looked. Another person told me about a would-be thief threatening to kill them when prevented from stealing their motorbike. Another constituent’s teenager saved for months for a moped to take them to college, only for it to be stolen from their drive in broad daylight. There is also evidence on social media of a network specifically set up to sell and source stolen bikes in Loughborough.

Too often these criminals are getting away without being punished. They are acting without consequence, unafraid of being caught and laughing as they ride away with stolen property. For them, stealing bikes is low risk and high reward, but for my constituents, of course, it is not. Bike theft is not a trivial matter, and it is certainly not a victimless crime. It affects young apprentices travelling to work at 6 am, students commuting to lectures, teachers coming home from work and employees finishing late shifts in factories and other workplaces across the country, who depart after a long day only to find that they can no longer get home.

We can tackle the scourge of bike theft only by working together—as members of a community with a stake in one another’s wellbeing. Leicestershire police, I am pleased to say, recently launched Operation Original to great success. It is joining local officers with the force’s drone team and road policing unit, with specially trained police on unmarked motorbikes going the extra mile to keep my community safe. I thank the officers for that and for the arrests that they have made, the 42 vehicles stopped, the 13 motorbikes seized and the four individuals cautioned for driving offences. Since the operation began, reports of stolen vehicles have dropped by 36% in targeted areas. That is a dramatic reduction in crime in such a short space of time.

We have heard the police say that the operation has been “a great success”, and that they have

“disrupted criminal activity…and taken vehicles off the road which are being used to commit crime. We are…making full use of the range of tactics available”.

But there is more that we must do, and that I must do, to raise awareness of bike theft in our community. This is about continuing to be vigilant, promoting prevention strategies and understanding what we can do to support one another and help to prevent crime. It is about making sure that bikes are locked, keeping them covered to make them harder to steal, and reporting thefts to the police so that we can fully understand the extent of the problem.

The Government are supporting us nationally, and I thank them for that. The Crime and Policing Bill will give officers extra powers to seize and crush more bikes, and there will be stronger antisocial behaviour orders to clamp down on offenders who repeatedly terrorise communities. All of that is deeply welcome. On top of it all, of course, our aim is to increase police numbers to ensure that more officers are available on our streets. In addition, we can do more work to help officers get the training they need to pursue motorbikes so that they can catch those responsible, unencumbered by rules and regulations that make it harder to stop criminals, rather than easier.

I ask the Minister to set out the work that she and the Department are doing, not only on stopping crime in general but specifically on motorbike and bike theft in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages and, of course, across the country. Every person deserves to feel safe in their community, but that is clearly not possible when they are seeing their property at risk of being stolen from their driveways in a threatening manner that undermines the very sense of safety that all of us should feel in this country. Bike theft is not something that we can simply brush aside or ignore because it is convenient to do so. We must refuse to back down in the face of intimidation by investing in our police, working with the local community and tackling the scourge of bike theft in Loughborough.

Violence against Women and Girls: London

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for leading today’s debate and for her strength of character as well. I have had talks with the hon. Lady and I understand there are things in her own life that she has dealt with. She shows a character and a courage that I admire and that many others in this House admire as well, so I thank her for bringing the debate forward.

This problem is a huge issue across the world, particularly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I am pleased to take part in the debate, first to support the hon. Lady in highlighting the issues and, secondly, to represent the people of Northern Ireland, in solidarity, about the problems that we have back home. I listened intently to the hon. Lady’s comments. The statistics and stories are shocking and saddening. She has undertaken great work on the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, and I am aware that she has opened up previously on her own experiences of that—things that we really need to take note of. We must do more, of course.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. None of us will be disappointed with her response at the end of this debate, because she has lived all of these stories. Many moons ago, way back when we first got to know each other in the House, she brought all those personal stories from her own constituency—they were raw stories, I remember. I used to get quite upset sometimes when she told us about things that had happened. I am pleased to see her in her place, because I am sure she will be able to speak out for every woman and girl not just in London, but further afield. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined, this occurs not just in London but across the world, and she gave examples as well.

The Met police conclude that the crime of violence against women and girls in London has increased significantly; it rose by 37% between 2018 and 2023. According to the London Assembly, in the year up to January 2025, recorded sexual offences rose by 7.4% compared with the previous year, so we are unfortunately seeing a trend—I suspect that it is a trend in society. I am going to give some of the stats for the Northern Ireland; the Minister will know them. They are incredibly worrying and disturb me greatly. We should note that that figure of 7.4% is only what is recorded. We know that often women do not feel confident to come forward for numerous reasons, so that figure could be the tip of the iceberg.

Although the debate is centred on London, I would not feel right if I did not mention Northern Ireland, and others would think it wrong of me, especially since the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned problems elsewhere. I want to give some stats about Northern Ireland just to put things into perspective. I raise this subject continually and will continue to do so to increase awareness of the dire situation. According to a report by our own Ulster University, almost 98% of women in Northern Ireland report experiencing at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. Can Members imagine that? Of every 100 women we see in Northern Ireland, 98 have experienced abuse of some sort.

Domestic abuse instances are very high. For example, in the year ending 31 March 2025, almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents were recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the 12 months to this date, there were six domestic abuse homicides in which all victims were females. Since 2019, PSNI data indicates that some 30 women and girls have been murdered by men. We have the worst stats in the whole of the United Kingdom. The Minister has spoken about that and has answered questions in the Chamber. I have asked her questions and she has responded. The figures are shocking, but this is a reality for thousands of women on a daily basis. Violence against women and girls is not rare; it is about walking with keys between the fingers, checking a friend gets home safe, or hearing a bang next door and thinking, “Should I intervene? Should I go and see if everything’s all right?” It is worrying, but unfortunately, the experience of so many has become normalised—and it can never be normal.

Everyone in this place has a role to play, and we must ensure that our services are approachable so that women feel they can come forward and, more importantly, be believed. When they go to report such behaviour, they should know that someone is there with a listening ear, prepared to take their story on board and do something. Behind every story that has been heard today or in the past stands a brave individual who, perhaps at one time, was not sure that she would escape and seek help. Those stories are testament to what support is available.

To conclude, we do not talk about this topic lightly. It is heavy—it is supposed to be, to help people understand the seriousness and scale of the problem. Statistically, the situation has gotten worse, and I want to do more to encourage people to be part of the conversation. We all need to praise those strong and brave women and girls who have told their story. Let us remind those who are afraid to speak out that they are not alone, and that we will all do our best in this place to ensure that they can safely access the help they need. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to commit to that. I understand that she will give us a response on London and the mainland, but I know that she has an interest in Northern Ireland because of what is happening there, so I look forward to her response. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse again for sharing her story.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

There are seven people bobbing and 38 minutes left, so the arithmetic is relatively simple: just over five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, unless somebody abuses the situation.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, we want to ensure that all fans from all parts of the world are welcome in this country. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that the problem of football hooliganism is nothing like what it was in the 1980s. There was a football match at Villa from which fans were banned in 2023, but I think that decision was made in response to activity in the immediate vicinity of the match. He is right to say that this is not a large problem any more—thank goodness—in part because of great policing, and in part because we have changed how football matches work. They are much more family affairs than they used to be, and there is less alcohol—all things that have helped us with these issues. He is right: we of course want to welcome Israeli fans, whenever they come.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers, and for the confidence that she is trying to instil across the nation. On the so-called confidential intelligence that West Midlands police claims to have seen about Israeli fans engaging in significant hooliganism, I am very concerned, as others are, about the message that sends about exclusion, and about how the Government deal with intelligence in this country. What steps have been taken to ensure that international football fans are treated fairly and are not excluded from events based on incorrect information and dishonest claims, and that lessons can be learned to prevent similar incidents in the future?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Where we can, we want to ensure that intelligence is correct, that decisions are made on the basis of a wide range of factors, and that football, a sport that this country loves so much, carries on in the way that we all want it to.