Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:

“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”

I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.

In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.

Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.

For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

Town and City Centre Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate and giving us all a chance to participate.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on town and city centre safety. Northern Ireland has several specific Government-led and multi-agency initiatives designed to improve safety in town and city centres. They are often co-ordinated through local partnerships, such as the PCSP—police and community safety partnership. However, as with most Departments, lack of funding in Northern Ireland has greatly hampered the progress in safety that they need. For example, CCTV —the sleeping policeman, as I call it—in Newtownards and Bangor is not fit for purpose. It needs upgrading: the screen and film is very grainy, so it is hard to ascertain who is on it. The local Police Service of Northern Ireland chief superintendent is crying out for a system that can be used as evidence for crimes, but more importantly one that can prevent crimes. The local PCSP have acknowledged the need, and yet the council’s hands are ostensibly tied, having struck the local rate.

We then go up the ladder to the Minister for Justice.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the potential for a win-win here? Many people complain about high street shops being derelict and empty, but if we can encourage people to live adjacent to or above retail units, we can increase footfall and protect people, provided the police are present, particularly in the evening time.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is not just about CCTV in the city centre, but in the shops as well. The Minister and the Department have highlighted that their funding does not stretch. I could argue that the Minister does not prioritise in the way that I would like, but that does not change the facts. The PSNI has indicated that if it had the system, it would monitor it. In other words, if the system is in place, the PSNI will look after it, so there is an advantage to doing that.

I have one quick story— I am conscious of time and want to give others the chance to participate. My son worked in a shop in Newtownards—he does not work there any more. One night, a guy came in to rob the till and steal some drink. He threatened my son with a knife, so my son stepped back, which was the right thing to do—there is no sense in being a hero when it comes to some maniac with a knife. The CCTV in the shop was the reason they were able to catch them, so it is just not about CCTV in the street, but the CCTV in the constituency shops as well.

The rate of crime in Newtownards is 33.6 crimes per 1,000 people compared with 36 elsewhere. The PSNI find themselves going from business to business to ask for camera evidence, and even to ask residents for Ring doorbell footage. That is another way of catching those who are up to no good, and is something we need to focus on.

Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree; that is the point that I am trying to draw out.

There were 2,646 procedures on dogs and 1,936 on non-human primates. Examples include non-human primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery and deprived of fluid to induce them to perform behavioural tasks and mice being given psychostimulant rewards such as cocaine or amphetamines—and this, under licence conditions. However, the ASRU report highlighted instances in which compliance with these licence conditions was not followed; there have been failures to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, which are the most basic welfare needs of animals being held in laboratories across the UK.

In one very distressing incident, it is reported that a mother was removed from its cage and killed, resulting in unweaned pups starving to death. In 2024, there were 146 cases of non-compliance in British laboratories, a 16% decrease from the 169 cases reported in 2023.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for rightly bringing us this debate. He is right to say that many people are concerned. Between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of animal welfare convictions in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence. Councils and enforcement bodies need greater funding to gather evidence, because evidence is critical for successful prosecutions. Does he agree that one takeaway from the report he refers to is that we can and should do more to protect animal welfare where possible, and the Government need to raise the priority for it?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree, although the hon. Member is addressing the wider issue of animal welfare, while my focus today is on this report. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right.

I was talking about non-compliance. The cases involved more than 22,000 animals, including mice, rats, fish, cows, sheep, frogs, guinea pigs, bats, dogs, non-human primates, cats, a hamster and a rabbit. I might add that those are the reported incidents; 68 establishment audits were conducted for the report but only 3% of cases of non-compliance were identified by audits and 69% were self-reported. That can hardly be described as a robust inspection system. In 75% of cases—three quarters—the only sanction was “inspector advice”.

The ASRU is responsible for licensing animal experiments in the UK, to protect animals in science and ensure compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That means following the principles known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. In other words, use non-animal methods where possible, reduce the number used to a minimum and refine procedures to minimise suffering. I know from visits undertaken by the APPG, which I referred to earlier, that there is a growing use of laboratory-grown human tissue in experimentation, which we need to support as parliamentarians.

The UK Government have stated:

“The Home Office is in the final stages of delivering a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform to further strengthen the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), ensuring confidence in the regulatory system and maintaining robust compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.”

Those reforms include increasing the number of full-time inspectors by March this year, but I would argue that that internal reform does not go far enough. The incidence of non-compliance shows that increasing the number of inspectors alone may not result in meaningful change.

I mentioned that 2.64 million procedures are taking place each year. We cannot rely solely on a few more full-time inspectors to turn the situation around; I note that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying. Labour’s publication last November of its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to the use of animals in science is very welcome, but meaningful change will not occur without a series of more robust measures.

I believe that the difficulty is that the UK is in danger of falling behind other international partners—in the European Union and, interestingly, in the US, which is speeding forward within three to five years to remove the requirement for animals to be used in research. It is strange that we appear to be falling behind internationally in this instance. Although the strategy is committed to increasing funding for human-specific technologies, founding a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and setting up a cross-Government ministerial Committee to oversee implementation, it contains no timeline for phasing out all animal experiments.

We on the APPG on phasing out animal experiments have discussed implementing Herbie’s law as a practical pathway to phase out animal testing, in collaboration with the scientific community. Legal experts have prepared a draft of Herbie’s law, entitled the human-specific technologies bill, describing how Government could ensure progress and how scientists could be supported, with detail on setting up an expert advisory committee to give specialist advice on animal replacement. I think I speak for many attending the debate when I say that we are keen to see an end to animal suffering in medical research.

The ASRU report’s findings are a stark reminder of what is at stake for animals when the law is broken, when licence conditions are not followed or when measures to ensure compliance are not as robust as they could be. The UK has an opportunity not only to secure our position as a global leader in animal protection and scientific innovation, but to end animal suffering in scientific research. That can be ensured only through a full transition from animal experimentation across the next decade. The ASRU report is a stark reminder that until that transition is in place, we will continue to fail animals in laboratories across the UK.

Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue.

In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response.

That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet?

In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record.

Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward for debate. I, like others, always try to be helpful in my contributions. At a meeting with key stakeholders, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation in Northern Ireland met the Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They routinely acknowledge that the Northern Ireland firearms licensing system, which includes medical checks, is one of the most robust systems—if not the most—in the world. It is clear there is no need for change there. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to liaise with shooting organisations such as the BASC and Countryside Alliance to get insight from their expertise? Could the Minister potentially look at the system in Northern Ireland as the catalyst that the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve?

[Helen Maguire]

It is interesting to hear that there is another system in Northern Ireland, and indeed, I urge the Minister to look at that and see whether it could be applicable here.

Animal Testing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michael Wheeler]

Of course. It will surprise my hon. Friend not at all that I agree. I will come to the wider context and wider solutions, but at this time, although we can look to improve the situation, we must absolutely look to make sure that current regulations are enforced as we speak, and not let slide, because there have been hundreds of animals whose suffering breached the current legal framework and should have been prevented.

Some of the most disturbing incidents involve something as basic as access to food and water. In 2024, there were nine separate cases in which animals were not provided with adequate food or hydration, and 24 animals died as a result. In another case, a mother was removed from her cage and killed, leaving seven unweaned pups to starve to death. The report catalogues a litany of serious failures. Animals were reused, in second experiments, without proper authorisation. Others were kept alive past what most people would consider a humane end point. They were left to suffer as tumours grew too large, or body weight fell dangerously low. In one case, misidentification of sex led to regulated procedures being performed on seven pregnant mice.

The failures affect a wide range of animals. Primates suffered injuries from faulty equipment, had tails trapped in cage doors or were left without food overnight. A freedom of information request revealed that in one case an incident deemed by ASRU to be a “minor breach” involved a dog being kept alive despite having suffered severe swelling of the parotid salivary glands as a result of the procedures that it had been through, before eventually being euthanised.

Given the gravity of the incidents, we should expect robust enforcement. Instead, we see a regulatory regime that is alarmingly weak. In three quarters of non-compliance cases, the only response was “inspector advice”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He is bringing forward some very harrowing stories, and they are certainly hard to accept. Non-compliance with animal welfare laws on farms in Northern Ireland was detected in more than 21% of those inspected. It is clear that welfare inspection is the key to making them acknowledge the regulations and to ensuring that they do what they should be doing. Does the hon. Member agree that non-compliance is best detected through inspection and that there must be more focus on inspection rates, to ensure that issues can be dealt with?

[Michael Wheeler]

I of course agree, and I have some information that will illustrate the point and the importance of inspections. In 2024, just 68 establishments were audited across Great Britain. Only 10 of the inspections were unannounced. That represents just 15% of inspections, which is down from 63% of inspections in 2018. The issue is further exacerbated by some elements of those audits being carried out remotely. Nearly 70% of non-compliance incidents were self-reported, which raises a troubling question about how much more is going undetected in the absence of regular, independent spot checks.

ASRU’s current regime of regulatory reform includes increasing the number of inspectors by March to 22 full-time equivalents, up from 14.5, but incremental tweaks to oversight will not solve the underlying problem. In 2024 alone, 2.64 million scientific procedures were carried out on animals. That scale of activity cannot be meaningfully overseen through marginal staffing increases.

The wider issue is that we continue to allow legally sanctioned animal suffering. For instance, some licences permit deliberate deprivation. Primates’ entire daily food intake can be restricted so that food can be used as a reward for correct task performance during sessions lasting up to six hours. Rats, meanwhile, can go without water for up to 22 hours a day, over a week, to encourage them to consume liquids containing potentially aversive substances. Thousands of procedures still rely on controversial tests such as LD50 toxicity testing and the forced swim test—an outdated model that the Government acknowledge has limited scientific value. Licence summaries reveal the severity of authorised suffering: thousands of animals undergo painful procedures without analgesia because pain relief might interfere with the results.

Equally concerning is the failure to uphold the core legal principle at the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 2A is clear that scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods must be used wherever possible, yet an expert report commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research identified a “system-wide failure” to replace animals where alternatives already exist. Home Office summaries show that licences have been granted even when non-animal methods are clearly available. In one example, animals were being used as an intermediary step in heart disease research, despite well-known anatomical differences that limit the relevance of that research to humans.

It is time for us to find another way. More than 92% of drugs that succeed in animal tests do not end up being used by patients. That is primarily due to poor efficacy and safety issues that were not predicted by animal testing. We are now at the point where human-specific technologies, using human cells, tissues, artificial intelligence and advanced modelling, offer faster, safer and more relevant results. Pioneering work projects have been taking place for decades, leading to breakthroughs such as mini-hearts that accurately model human cardiac disease without harming animals.

Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital exploitation of women and girls.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Online abuse and digital exploitation are extremely prevalent in the modern-day world. The targeting of women and girls in online spaces is growing into a market where legislation is not keeping up with the speed of the digital world, so much so that the world’s richest man considered it acceptable and a matter of free speech to have his personal artificial intelligence platform undress women without their consent. That is shameful.

There is a growing difference between in-person exploitation—including sex trafficking, grooming, domestic violence and coercive control—and digital abuse and exploitation of someone’s image, where victims are often not known to perpetrators. In most cases they may not have any knowledge that they are even being exploited, and these crimes often happen in a highly organised manner.

In Lancashire, the police and crime commissioner conducted a survey of 4,800 people on violence against women and girls—otherwise known as VAWG—which asked about digital abuse. Half of the women surveyed, 51%, said they had experienced unwanted or inappropriate messages or images online. Only 12% of those women reported it to the police or any official body. Only a third of survey respondents felt confident that the police would act if they reported an incident, and just 8% trusted the wider criminal justice system to deliver any kind of justice.

Research by the domestic abuse organisation Refuge states that almost every survivor they have supported was subject to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. Some 95% of survivors of technology-facilitated abuse said it had impacted their mental health. I work closely with many organisations in Preston that tackle VAWG, many of which I am pleased to say are here today to observe the debate: the Foxton Centre, Lancashire Women, Hope Prevails Preston, Girls Who Walk Preston and Trust House Lancashire. We are also talking about stalking and abuse. Most of us would think about conventional stalking, where a perpetrator knows the individual or there is often a real-life link between them. The digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators utilise online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an incredibly difficult subject to address, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing it incredibly well. As a grandfather of three beautiful granddaughters and having seen how the online world has made so many women and girls vulnerable to despicable attacks, I certainly share his concerns, and I believe that we must do more to ensure that safety is paramount. Does he agree that not only do we need to make it digitally impossible to carry out exploitation, but we must ensure that our young people are taught the dangers of image sharing, which can lead to image replication online? The Department for Education, in co-ordination with parents, has a key role to play in that.

Police Reform White Paper

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Policing Minister has met representatives of the Northern Ireland Government today, and I will happily meet the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland to make our proposals clear. The remit of the National Police Service will be UK-wide, but its powers and the remit specifically between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will vary depending on the arrangements that we already have in place. I will happily discuss this with him in detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and I very much welcome the UK-wide National Police Service. The papers over the weekend referred to a “British FBI”, and I am reminded that national and international crime gangs are involved in terrorism, drug smuggling, people trafficking and child sexual abuse. They traverse all the regional borders of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in Northern Ireland we also have the border with the Republic of Ireland. Can the Secretary of State please confirm that Northern Ireland will be fully included in that police force and that it will not be an England and Wales-only force, as that would in no way increase domestic security?

[Shabana Mahmood]

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the National Police Service will be able to carry out operations only with the agreement of the legally designated authority. That reflects the current arrangements for serious and organised crime and counter-terror policing in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on any other points of detail.

Disclosure and Barring Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand about the incredibly important issues that she is raising. Does she agree that child safety must be paramount? The Government need to clarify paid and voluntary sector rules—for example, how often should screening be done and how often should mandatory child protection training be carried out? Too much is left to best practice, which differs across all the regions, and not enough is clear and unequivocal. The time has come to make obligations crystal clear.

[Vikki Slade]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: assumptions are being made around the country. As the mother of four children, I assumed, as I dropped off my children, that everybody had to be DBS checked. The idea that that is not strictly the case fills me with dread. When I talked to the people from the Campaign for Gigi this afternoon about nursery safety, I shared this issue with them, and they were horrified. Clearly, people working in an early years setting are required to have an enhanced DBS check, but they were concerned about other sectors, too.

As I am sure the Minister can understand, Lauren’s grandfather Paul, who brought this case to my attention, and Lauren’s parents remain concerned that if the coach had been reported to the DBS at the time of the original allegations and potentially withdrawn from working with children, Lauren, who was described as

“a talented singer and dancer with the world at her feet”

may not have been introduced to illegal drugs and could well have been continuing to enjoy a very bright future. Additionally, there does not seem to be a route for the public to report concerns. If the employer has not registered a member of staff, or an organisation has not been deemed to be undertaking a “regulated activity”, as the council told me the dance school was not, there is no one to document the concerns and no register to check.

I welcome the DBS’s new video, which was launched before Christmas, to support faith organisations with the legal duty to refer. The legal duty to refer requires organisations to notify the DBS when they remove a person from a regulated activity because they have harmed or may pose a risk of harm, but it does not protect those in the care of an individual who has not been registered by their employer in the first place. I welcome the changes made in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will close the loophole for supervised staff, ensuring that they will be eligible for checks against the children’s barred list. I also welcome the Minister’s work to ensure that that happened earlier last year.

Those are positive steps, but I have two questions. First, will the Government consider requiring employers and organisations to register their staff, rather than just making them eligible, and will they require the police, local authority or regulator to record allegations made against the organisation where an individual is not registered? Secondly, have the Government considered a simpler system? For example, there could be a system in which an individual applies for a card that could be searched by an employer, a parent or a service user to confirm that an individual has been cleared to work with children or vulnerable people. The card could include a “date of most recent update” section—that way, details of past convictions do not necessarily need to be shared, but a timeline of when people have been deemed safe to be around vulnerable people could be.

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.