Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of.

There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist. My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint.

It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life.

I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the TV last night, they did a survey of GPs. The relationship between a GP and a patient is incredibly close. When our children and grandchildren come into the world, our GP is involved. When a GP has to deliver a diagnosis of terminal illness, there is fear not just in the eyes of the patient but in the eyes of the GP—the doctor, the friend we all have. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of today’s debate and vote? It will change forever that relationship of trust between the GP and the patient; it will do so in a negative way and it will never change ever again.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so.

On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee. I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place.

We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), all the Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House for the approach that everyone has taken to this Bill.

I want to make it clear that I came to this Bill with an open mind. Like many, I supported it in principle at first glance, but this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death—that is not the decision before us today; it is not the issue on which we will walk through the Lobby when we decide to vote for or against this Bill. Our responsibility in this place is to make sure that the Bill is safe, workable and effective. That is the test that will lead us to vote for or against the Bill today. As the Bill stands, it presents a public safety issue.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I understand her concerns. They are the same concerns I have, on behalf of those who have anorexia, those with mental health conditions, troubled people—those who would be vulnerable when this idea was presented to them. Does she think, like I do, that this Bill does not in any way address the issue of those who are vulnerable, when it comes to assisted dying?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with.

I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Bill creates a criminal offence that would punish those who would coerce a relative in such a way. [Hon. Members: “Self-coerce.”] There are folks who talk about the concept of self-coercion, but others would frame such a decision as a choice. Self-coercion is a choice.

My constituent said,

“This could have been avoided with an assisted dying law. My partner was from a jurisdiction where such a law exists. A relative used that law. They were able to gather their family, say a proper goodbye and die in peace and with dignity before losing all physical and mental capacity.”

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Josh Babarinde]

I will not, to give others the chance to speak after me.

My constituent went on to say,

“The procedure to enable this was protracted and had several safeguards which would prevent much of the concerns we hear about by those opposed. I urge you to support this bill”—

the Bill, and not just the principle. I will do so because the status quo is completely unacceptable and must be reformed.

Marriage between First Cousins

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on marriage between first cousins.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak on a topic that many in our country assume is already settled. People assume that the marriage of first cousins is prohibited, as it was for 1,000 years in England. Yet that is not the case today. Despite deep cultural, medical and societal reasons to avoid such unions, our laws have remained unchanged since the era of Henry VIII. To many, that is a source of bewilderment and bafflement—as it was to me, until I dug deeper and realised some of the real dangers that widescale first cousin marriage can bring.

The Church banned first cousin marriage in the fifth century. By the 11th century it had prohibited marriage up to sixth cousins. That ban was reversed by a Tudor monarch with a perhaps chequered marital record and we have remained broadly silent on the issue ever since. However, the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, society and our broader understanding have moved on, and our laws must do the same.

This is not a call for a legislative knee-jerk reaction. Silence, as Matthew Syed has powerfully written in The Times, does not constitute neutrality. Silence is a fundamental choice with serious consequences, both for children born with preventable disorders, and even more so for men and women denied basic freedoms and for communities fragmented from wider society. I urge the House and the Minister to recognise the scale of the issue and—I hope—the moral imperative to act. My argument rests on three key tenets: freedom, social cohesion and health.

During the last Parliament I worked with campaigners to end virginity testing and hymenoplasty. In doing so I stood on the shoulders of giants: brave women from many organisations who support young women trapped in oppressive familial and extended family tribal systems. I pushed for a private Member’s Bill, and then via amendments to the Health and Care Act 2022, with Baroness Sugg in the House of Lords helping as well; the Government accepted the argument by tabling their own amendments. When I picked up that campaign, via a chance encounter with an item on BBC Radio 1’s “Newsbeat”, there was no politician of any party leading the charge in this House. Some of the activists involved might have been a bit miffed that a new, unknown Back-Bench Tory MP was leading their cause—but they got me, and we managed to push through some of the changes that they had been fighting for so bravely and with such strength for such a long time.

What was the reason behind women being forced to undergo procedures that are at best pseudo-scientific, and at worst deeply harmful? It was unscientific concepts of virginity linked to gender-oppressive ideas of purity in an oppressive patriarchal culture. Often those were linked to forced marriages. Some of their stories will never leave me: young women who had had their education and ambitions cut short being sent to marry men they had never met—men chosen not for compatibility or affection, but to preserve family alliances, assets or bastardised notions of honour.

Such arrangements are not just about culture; they are also about control. The system is upheld by pressure and enforced through silence, and people attempt to justify it through tradition. When marriage is confined within families, the cost of refusal rises astronomically: it is not simply turning down a partner, but rejecting grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and the entire network of family and friends—and that has a price. Choice under those circumstances is no choice at all. That is why I see the legislation that I put forward in my private Member’s Bill, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, and the debate we are having today as an extension of the work I did in the last Parliament.

We have heard, rightly, about patriarchal systems that rob women of autonomy, but in cousin marriage those systems are particularly resilient. Why? Because the families are not just connected, but fused—inextricably joined. The pressure is not just external, from legal systems; it is intimate and wholly inescapable, especially when it is generation after generation.

Men are trapped too; I have been told of British Pakistani men forced into such arrangements by community and familial obligations, terrified to defy expectations and cut ties with cousins whom they often consider, because of the closeness of their relationship, almost as siblings. There are even cases of gay men and women who have been forced to marry out of familial obligation. That is not hypothetical: since raising this issue, I have been contacted by scores of youth workers, healthcare professionals and ordinary members of the community who have thanked me for raising it and asked me to keep going. They need politicians to speak up, because they feel that they cannot.

Beneath the surface and behind closed doors, there is support and a real hunger for change in these communities. Sadly, what is lacking is the political courage to match that quiet majority—and it is a quiet majority in all parts of our community: polls show that support for reform is not linked to the black, white or other populations, and a YouGov poll just a few weeks ago showed that a majority of British Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities back a ban on first cousin marriage. The vain virtue signallers who said that moves in this direction would be racist must take a look at themselves; they are the ones opposing a majority of the communities that they play-act at representing.

For people in the communities I am speaking up for—most of the British Pakistani community, where this is a big issue, and to a lesser extent the Traveller community—cousin marriage is entangled with status, tradition and expectations, and speaking out can be very dangerous. As with forced marriage and female genital mutilation, silence only enables the system. Only sunlight breaks the cycle, and that means naming the issue, debating it and legislating against it.

Some critics say a ban would infringe upon people’s freedom—but what freedom are we protecting? The reality for so many is a life predetermined by bloodline and birth order. We are not protecting a freedom; we are perpetuating oppression. Whose freedom, if any, are we protecting? Purely the freedom of the oppressor to oppress and keep down—not the freedom of the individual. The state already intervenes where power dynamics distort consent. We rightly outlaw relationships between teachers and pupils or therapists and clients, because of the imbalance. The same must apply here.

Let us not forget that most cousin marriages are not one-offs. In some cases, they are multi-generational. With each generation, the chance to choose diminishes further. The net tightens and lives are lost in the gaps.

I move now beyond individual freedom to the broader issue of social cohesion. Patrick Nash, an Oxford theologian, argues that cousin marriage undermines trust in public institutions; when communities marry inward, loyalty is channelled inward to extended families and clan structures, rather than to the important shared civic values of the nation state and wider society.

At Harvard, Joseph Henrich has documented how the decline of cousin marriage helped to build western liberal democracies. When families are forced to look beyond their kin networks for marriage partners, new alliances form. Societies move beyond tribal loyalty to a broader civic trust. Studies show that, where cousin marriage continues, there is reduced integration, lower social mobility and higher incidence of corruption. Why? Because when job, marriage, dispute resolution and identity all sit within the same extended family structure, wider society fades from relevance.

If we want a society that functions on the basis of fairness, where the rule of law prevails and where people engage beyond their own, we cannot allow closed family systems to continue to flourish unchallenged. So-called community leaders—often unelected and unaccountable—who derive their authority from familial networks become gatekeepers for those people and communities. They decide who speaks, who marries whom and who gets heard. This system is self-perpetuating. These are not British values, and those who perpetuate such systems should be exposed. In many cases, those leaders are the ones resisting reform, not because the arguments for change are weak, but because their own power depends on those structures being preserved. Reform threatens their influence. That is why this issue matters so much.

We must remember that cousin marriage is not a religious obligation, but a cultural tradition, and traditions can and must change. Other nations have already exhibited powerful leadership in this area; we should look towards countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark for a steer. Those countries are liberal democracies with incredibly strong human rights records. They are not reactionary or anachronistic, but fundamentally progressive. Why, then, are we allowing Britain to lag behind? We hear concerns about cultural insensitivity—I have been accused of it myself—but is it not far more insensitive to ignore the pleas of those trapped within those structures? Is it not condescending to assume that communities cannot adapt or reform?

We should be empowering individuals, not entrenching power in extended family hierarchies. The state’s job is not to ratify patriarchal bargains, but to protect liberty, health and the chance of every citizen to live a full and independent life. When cousin marriage is prevalent, society and integration suffer, and shared spaces become fewer; school catchments, neighbourhoods and even workplaces can fracture along the lines of extended kin. That is not diversity at its best, but division at its worst. It is not about faith or race. It is about what sort of country we want to live in: one ruled by fear masquerading as family loyalty, or one where each citizen stands equal, with rights and responsibilities to each other deeper than those of family and clan. Those fundamentals are the foundation of a modern nation state and ones I believe this Parliament, this Government and this House should uphold.

Finally, I come to science and the health issue, because the best understood point against cousin marriage, though it is not core to my argument, is health. The Born in Bradford study, one of the UK’s most comprehensive birth cohort analyses, has followed 11,000 children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. It is a difficult subject, and one that can be hard to listen to and respond to in a balanced way. I thank him for doing that well. Does he not agree that the science showing that the prevalence of birth defects doubling in cases of cousin marriage is reason enough to consider drastic legal action? While education is an enviable end-goal pathway, the stats show that it is not effective enough at present. In the interim, for the sake of children and communities, does he agree that action should be taken?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member contributes so often to our debates in such a thoughtful way. He raises an important point about health, which I will develop. The health issues are of fundamental importance but, as I have said in my speech, there are broader societal concerns that mean this issue should be higher up the Government’s agenda more generally as well.

For unrelated parents, the Born in Bradford study found that around one in 40 children are born with serious birth defects. Among first cousins, that rises to roughly one in 15, even when controlling for poverty, education and maternal age. That is more than double the risk. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not an isolated issue. In some communities, cousin marriage remains par for the course—the typical, not the atypical. In parts of Bradford, for instance, over half of all mothers of Pakistani heritage are married to first or second cousins.

That is hardly new information; as far back as the 19th century, the British Medical Journal documented inherited risks from unions between first cousins. Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin, and he suspected a link between his marriage and the poor health of his children, three of whom died young and five of whom suffered from chronic illnesses or disability.

The genetic risks run from the well-known Tay-Sachs, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis to the under-recognised microcephaly, heart defects and intellectual disabilities. Those disorders are often lifelong, and the toll is felt not just by families, but by wider society—by the NHS, by our special educational needs system and across communities.

Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford, has written extensively on cousin marriage in British-Pakistani communities. Drawing on public health data, she highlights that children born to first cousins face roughly double the risk of serious genetic disorders compared with those of unrelated parents. Some have suggested that genetic testing could solve the problem but, while certain conditions can be screened for, many cannot. More importantly, testing does nothing to address the broader issues I have already spoken of around coercion and lack of real choice.

Moreover, as UK Biobank studies demonstrate, multi-generational first cousin marriages exponentially compound risk. The DNA profiles in such families begin almost to mirror those of siblings, or certainly uncle-niece relationships, which often carry much higher risks of severe birth defects, when first cousin marriage occurs generation after generation. In broader culture, people often think of the Habsburgs as a reference point, but this issue is more than mere historical curiosity; it is sadly representative of a contemporary crisis that continues to affect families today.

Behind every statistic lie families, clinicians and patients struggling to manage lifelong consequences. What makes this more painful is that so many of these conditions are entirely preventable. When the science is clear, it beggars belief that we still choose not to do anything. We must stop pretending that this is a marginal issue. The data is clear: it is not anecdotal, but systematic. The status quo is not neutral; it is a form of abandonment, and sustaining it is indefensible.

If we were to design a system that throttled personal freedom, threw in major health issues and undermined national cohesion, we could hardly do better than the widespread practice of first cousin marriage. We ban incest for good reasons. We recognise the power imbalances inherent to sexual relationships between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, uncles and aunts and their nieces and nephews, and parents and their children. We legislate to protect the vulnerable, so why are we silent here? Sadly, I fear that it is because we fear being called intolerant and it is sometimes easier not to look. The truth is that inaction is not neutrality; it is complicity. We must do better.

We need only to look at what has happened in recent days with the release of the report on grooming gangs. I think back to the Labour MPs who raised that issue at a much earlier stage, such as Ann Cryer, who spoke passionately about it almost two decades ago. There is a lot to learn from people who have gone before us.

My Bill currently sits before the House. I thank the Members who have already put their names to it, including the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).

I urge the Government to take this matter seriously and to listen to the survivors, to professionals and to the silent majorities in the affected communities. We must stop treating such issues as a taboo. If the so-called community leaders had got their way, we would have kept marriage under 16 and we would not have banned hymenoplasty and virginity testing or people being taken abroad for forced marriage. This should not be a taboo issue; it is a public health issue. It is about liberty and integration.

The aim is not to condemn, but to liberate, in order to ensure that our country is one where freedom does not end at the edge of tradition, where cohesion is built on our common citizenship, not inherited constraint, and where children are not born into suffering that we have the power to prevent. We have a chance to take a lead and make a statement that in 21st century Britain, freedom, health and integration matter. I hope the Minister will hear that call.

Theft of Tools of Trade

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Amanda Martin]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

Decriminalising Abortion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

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

[Jim Shannon]

We have three hours.

[Tony Vaughan]

All right then.

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Tony Vaughan]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

[Emily Darlington]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

[Ms Creasy]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

[Ms Creasy]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Ms Creasy]

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

Victims and Courts Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

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

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

[Ayoub Khan]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Ayoub Khan]

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

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

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

Protection of Prison Staff

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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