Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because I know it is of interest to other Members who represent areas that have a Reform administration. The Government are providing councils with a record £7.3 billion over the next four years for local road maintenance. This is not the first time she has raised the underperformance of the Reform-led East Sussex county council in this House. As I have said before, Reform is very good at offering to do a great deal in order to get elected, and then it delivers much less service to residents. I hope that Reform councillors have listened to her contribution today, that they take their job seriously and that they get on with the work that is necessary. The lack of communication from the leader of her council is disrespectful to Members of Parliament, and I hope that he has heard my hon. Friend today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for all his answers to our questions and wish him well for the summer. I look forward to returning in September.
Can we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the continuing discrimination faced by the Baha’i community in Egypt? The Egyptian authorities continue to refuse to recognise Baha’i marriages, leaving Baha’i children without legal status and denying them access to citizenship rights, residency and, in some cases, education. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement so that the Government can set out the representations that they are making to the Egyptian authorities on upholding freedom of religious belief and the fundamental rights of the Baha’i community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent attendance at these sessions, for raising these very important matters and for the tone in which he raises them. He should be commended for that, and he asks a serious question. The UK strongly condemns the persecution of Baha’i communities in many countries around the world. We continue to raise concerns about freedom of religion and belief with the Egyptian authorities, and I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Foreign Office Minister.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved in making her summer school a success and all the volunteers who support youth groups in all our areas. I have heard many good things about her summer school—long may it continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary what recent assessment she has made of the case of Uyghur Muslim Rahile Dawut, a folklorist and academic imprisoned in China solely for her faith and cultural identity, and what steps His Majesty’s Government have taken to secure her immediate release and to uphold freedom of religion or belief across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s foreign policy commitments?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. As he knows, we stand firm on violations of human rights. We have raised our concerns regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims with the highest levels of the Chinese Government. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Foreign Secretary, who will have heard his remarks, so that we can get the specifics of that case.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter—she is an assiduous campaigner for her wonderful constituency. It is important that work is done, and that that work is transparent and timely. I encourage the local council to engage with this matter and to work with my hon. Friend to resolve it. It is the council’s responsibility to help with these matters, but I will reach out to the relevant Government Department to request that it provides my hon. Friend with any available guidance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the escalating abduction crisis in northern Nigeria? Reports indicate that some 1,100 people were abducted in the first four months of this year, and last week, gunmen—terrorists—attacked Government Day secondary school in Lassa, Borno state, and abducted 36 students and one staff member during examination time. What representations have the Government made to the Nigerian authorities to strengthen civilian protection, secure the release of those still held captive, and tackle the armed groups responsible for these attacks?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I saw those reports, and what is happening is appalling. The UK stands firmly against these attacks, and at this difficult time we stand firmly with the people and Government of Nigeria and with the families of the children who have been abducted. We continue to work closely with the Government of Nigeria, including through our ongoing security and defence partnership. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the Foreign Office.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the Met police have the resources they need, and have increased funding by £446 million since coming to office. Court proceedings relating to Operation Manor are ongoing, and critical elements are still to be considered before any asset is realised. Ministers will consider how any residual funds are distributed, including reflecting on the role of the Metropolitan police service.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for all his answers. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the protection of recognised and unrecognised religious minority communities in the Gulf region? Following reports from Human Rights Watch that Qatari authorities have ordered members of key Baha’i institutions to leave the country without due process or an effective legal avenue to challenge these decisions, what steps are the Government able to take through their close bilateral relationships in the region to encourage stronger protections for freedom of religion or belief, legal recognition and due process for minority faith communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, raises an important matter. We strongly condemn the persecution of Baha’i communities in many countries around the world. Our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), has met with the Baha’i international community UN representative to discuss the persecution that the Baha’i face, and regularly engages with the community. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns with the Foreign Office and ensure that he gets a reply on what further action the Government can take.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her local team and club on an outstanding achievement. Local football clubs—indeed, local sporting clubs—play such an important part in our local communities. On this occasion, not only will they celebrate their success, but I am sure they will be watching the television, looking at the performance of their national team and maybe even dreaming that they may be part of that in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Leader of the House will always be the king of the north as far as I am concerned—[Laughter.] I believe that many others in the House will be of the same opinion.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on freedom of religion or belief in Vietnam following the arrest of Pastor Siu Yúi and church member Siu Dok in Gia Lai province on 1 June on charges of undermining national unity, including what representations the Government have made to the Vietnamese authorities on the use of national security provisions against Montagnard Christians and other religious minorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I pay tribute to his tireless work in this regard. He knows that the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. We have regularly raised concerns in that regard in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Government, including through the work of our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), and we will continue to do so. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of NEETs. She is a great champion for her constituency, the region that we share, and young people in the area. The Government are committed to taking action, including the biggest reforms to apprenticeships in a decade and extending our youth guarantee, but as she suggests, there is more to be done. We will use Alan Milburn’s interim report to build on our reforms, and we look forward to receiving the full recommendations in the autumn. When that has happened, as I said earlier, the Government will want to update the House and find time for a debate on those matters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to bring an issue to the Chamber for the Leader of the House to consider. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the protections of religious leaders in Colombia, following reports that some 11 religious leaders have been assassinated, extrajudicially executed, forcibly disappeared or kidnapped since 2024, and on whether the Government will raise the restoration of protection measures for vulnerable faith leaders with the Colombian authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue on the freedom of religion or belief. The particular events he refers to are exceptionally concerning. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. I would encourage him to raise the issue at Foreign Office questions next week, so that he can put it directly to Ministers. I will also take it up with the Department and ensure that he gets the response that he needs.
Progression of Bills through Parliament
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson
Yes, I agree. I will come on to talk about future consideration of the legislation.
The arguments against the process—that the consideration was somehow flawed—were widely debated before Third Reading, and the Commons reached a conclusion on that. All MPs had to make a judgment, independent of the Whips, on whether they wanted to pass the legislation.
Sophie and Nathaniel were in the Commons Gallery on the day of Third Reading. They, like people across the country, thought a clear decision had been made: that assisted dying reform would become law, with significant safeguards, subject to some further iteration in the Lords, if required, including an extended implementation period of up to five years to allow any other considerations to be worked through. It was the approach of the House of Lords, specifically a small number of peers, that outraged Nathaniel, Sophie and the other petitioners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It may only have been a small number of peers who tabled amendments, but many others wished to put their names to them. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the will of the House of Lords? I think 170 peers had real concerns about the legislation. The role of the House of Lords is to ensure that those concerns are looked at, and it is fully entitled to do so. On this occasion, it was not able to improve the legislation in the timescale provided. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?
Lewis Atkinson
It is always a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman; he is much more experienced in this place than I am. However, over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no Divisions. If the will of the peers was so overwhelmingly against the Bill, the Lords could have divided on Second Reading if the House had wished; it chose not to.
The opponents of the Bill in the Lords went out of their way, it is suggested, to avoid Divisions. Some amendments may have passed, but a great number of others would probably have been defeated. With more than 1,200 amendments tabled, and 1% of peers tabling 60% of them, that small number of peers took up more than a third of the total speaking time.
Lewis Atkinson
I will finish my point. Fundamentally, the question is whether we can achieve social change in this country through parliamentary means, or not.
I will just go back to how Sophie, the key petitioner, felt. She summed it up in the following way:
“I’m living with incurable cancer and I know how precious time becomes when you’re facing the end of life. Watching Parliament waste that time because of the actions of a tiny number of unelected politicians is heartbreaking”.
It is not that the House of Lords was improving the Bill. It may have been in some cases, but the fact that the House of Lords, in 16 days, did not divide once and decide on one amendment—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I refer hon. Members to the 2019 report produced by the Constitution Committee, “The Legislative Process: The Passage of Bills Through Parliament”, which summarises well the roles each House of Parliament plays. It is instructive when considering this petition. I quote:
“The House of Commons usually addresses the policy and politics of bills, while the House of Lords tends to focus more of its scrutiny on the details and technicalities. This characterisation is not universal, but the complementarity of the broad approach of the two Houses is beneficial to the legislative scrutiny process.”
Similarly, “Erskine May” part 2, chapter 11, paragraph 11.4, concerning the rights and functions of the House of Lords, says:
“The House of Lords, as the unelected Chamber, recognises the primacy of the House of Commons. It does, however, retain substantial powers, particularly over legislation (see Part 4). The House uses its powers to legislate and to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation, to hold the Government to account, to investigate matters of public policy”.
My concern is that the petition emphasises the primacy of the Commons—which I wholly agree with—but neglects the function of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation. Fundamentally, I am deeply troubled by the proposition that any Bill that passes this House, irrespective of its subject matter, should become law regardless of its flaws or the risk it may pose to the vulnerable. This is particularly so in the case of the assisted suicide Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment.
The House of Lords is constitutionally entitled to subject proposals to sustained scrutiny, arguably especially on a morally significant subject such as assisted suicide. The assisted suicide Bill was introduced as a private Member’s Bill, but it did not have the rigorous pre-legislative testing that Government Bills benefit from.
Jim Shannon
No.
That scrutiny cannot simply be a rubber stamp. If it is conceived of as a rubber stamp, that is a false understanding of what scrutiny entails. The Hansard Society has stated clearly during the previous Session that
“The House of Lords has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block the assisted dying bill.”
That myth needs dispelling.
The second myth that needs to be dispelled is the absurd accusation of the blocking or filibustering the assisted dying Bill by just a small handful of Lords. Amendments were tabled or co-signed by more than 90 peers, and some 140 peers with a range of views on the principle of assisted suicide expressed opposition to the Bill in the Lords, in the form of amendments, speaking in debates or Parliamentary questions. Some have pointed out that hundreds of amendments were tabled by a small number of peers, but it is important to note that dozens of other peers would have tabled the same amendments. It is a total fiction to suggest that opposition came from only a few—there were multiple peers involved.
I will tell hon. Members who those prominent peers were. They were lead signatories on these amendments because of their expertise. They included Baroness Grey-Thompson, who tabled amendments relating to disability—who has better knowledge than that lady? Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care professor, tabled amendments on medical issues—again, her knowledge is significant. Lord Carlile KC, tabled amendments related to legal concerns. Had they not put their names to those amendments, countless others would have done so. They led on those amendments, and the fact that others did not add their names does not mean that they would not have done so in turn.
It is also important to understand that, having been sent to the Lords by this House, the Bill was scrutinised by three separate Committees: the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and a Lords Select Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee was scathing about the skeletal nature of the Bill’s provisions, which included handing more than 40 sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to future Ministers to determine what assisted suicide under the Bill would actually look like.
The final myth, on which the petition partially rests, is that Lords scrutiny of a Bill should be rendered null due to public support for this particular proposal. That is an exceptionally flimsy argument and does not stand up to scrutiny. Putting aside the veracity of claims of 70% public support for the Bill, a recent multi-level regression and post-stratification poll found that, across the country, just 8% of the public would support pushing a non-manifesto commitment into law without approval and full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. The same poll found only 7% ranked it among their top three priorities for their MPs to focus on.
We should listen to our constituents. I always listen to my constituents, in Strangford. I suggest that others may need to do the same.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Jim Shannon
No.
I understand the desire of those who support the Bill to see it enacted and perhaps even their disappointment and frustration that the Bill fell at the conclusion of the previous Session. However, to consider use of the Parliament Act to force through this specific, uncorrected, flawed version of the Bill would be foolhardy. A law that is bludgeoned on to the statute book is not one in which we could or should have confidence. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to consider this. I have a different opinion from some in this House, but I have a right to express my opinion on behalf of my constituents. I am doing that. The Leader of the House knows that I do it regularly in the House. I respect others and always have done, but I know one thing for certain—in this case, the procedures have been used correctly.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that those in Lancashire combined county authority will have heard my hon. Friend’s contribution. The Government are committed to delivering simpler, more reliable and better joined-up journeys for people across England, including in his area, and we have recently published our “Better Connected” strategy. I encourage him to keep up the pressure, and there are Transport questions next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for his responses to all our questions, which are always chased up. This week, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the situation for Shi’as, Ismailis, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and other religious minority communities in Afghanistan and on what steps the Government are taking to raise freedom of religion or belief in international engagement on Afghanistan?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and we are major aid donors to Afghanistan, with up to £154 million allocated in the last financial year. As the Foreign Secretary said in February,
“The rights of all Afghans must be protected.”
FCDO officials engage with the Taliban Government in Afghanistan and urge them to reverse their oppressive decrees on human rights, but I will make sure the hon. Gentleman gets a response from the relevant Minister to set out all the actions we are taking.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a wonderful champion for his constituency, and I once again commend him for that. We are giving constituents the investment and powers they need to deliver the change they want to see in their communities, not least through Pride in Place. He makes a strong case for further funding, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears his remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to have the Leader of the House back in his place again? I look forward to his contributions, and thank him for all the responses that he coaxes out of the Ministers who respond to me. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on China’s law on the promotion of ethnic unity and progress, which is due to come into force in July, and its implications for freedom of religion or belief, cultural identity, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in China? China continues to punitively and aggressively persecute Christians, Falun Gong, Muslims and others.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. There has been a bit of a theme this morning about my being in my place; I am slightly worried that hon. Members have heard something that I have not—you never know. As ever, he raises a serious matter. The Government stand firm on human rights, including the repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet and the wider erosion of rights and freedoms across China. We continue to monitor developments, and urge China to respect its obligations under international and national laws. We will not hesitate to hold China to account for human rights violations. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns.
Business of the House
Jim Shannon Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.
Jesse Norman
And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by.
Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House.
This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf:
“Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.”
This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament.
The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.
Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.
It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.
I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the work of Community Rail Network and the dedication of its volunteers. As I said earlier, community groups and volunteers are the golden thread that tie our communities together. I absolutely thank the people he is talking about in Derby, and indeed those in other parts of our country.
Jim Shannon
I wish to raise concerns regarding the detention of Roy Silva, a British citizen who has reportedly been held in Sri Lanka after attending a discussion at a local Roman Catholic church where he spoke about his Christian faith. Since the end of January, he has been held in atrocious conditions, mostly in a room with 200 other prisoners and more recently in a room of 25 prisoners. Mr Silva, who lives in Chingford with his family, had travelled to Sri Lanka to attend his sister’s funeral. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what steps have been taken to secure his immediate release and safe return to the UK, and what representations have been made to the Sri Lankan authorities regarding his detention?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such a serious and concerning case. As he knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and I can assure him that we are treating this case with the seriousness that it deserves. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Foreign Secretary that sets out the actions we are taking.