Baby Loss: Coroners

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tim Loughton

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered baby loss and the role of coroners.

I am afraid you have a double dose of me this afternoon, Ms Elliott. That is obviously far too much for the people in the Public Gallery, who have made a surge for the exits.

This short debate will be focused on my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which has been going for quite a while now and remains unfulfilled in one part; that is the purpose of the debate. My Act started in the private Members’ Bill ballot in autumn 2017. It had its Second Reading on 2 February 2018. It passed all its parliamentary stages in February 2019 and passed into law in May 2019, almost five years ago. There were four parts to this historically quite ambitious and complicated private Member’s Bill.

The first part was that the names and details of mothers should appear on marriage certificates, now an electronic record. That came into being in May 2021, since when I have received many grateful thanks from mothers or the husbands of late mothers whose names could be now recorded on marriage records.

The second part was the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, which came in on 31 December 2019 and became regulation on the last day of Parliament before the election in 2019. Since then, more than 25,000 happy couples have availed themselves of that facility.

The third part was for the Secretary of State to produce a report on the registration of pregnancy loss. A pregnancy loss committee was set up, and I sat on it. Within the last couple of weeks, baby loss certificates have become a thing and again have gone down very well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Loughton]

So early? Of course—how could I resist?

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the four provisions that he brought forward, particularly the pregnancy loss one. It is something that probably all of us have to come to terms with in our family, and it is difficult. It is always a difficult topic to discuss, but the hon. Gentleman is right to bring it forward. As families, we can all feel for those who have lost babies during pregnancy. We feel for our partners, our wives, our mothers, our sisters, and all those who have lost as well. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward.

Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tim Loughton

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I do, and with some annoyance, anger and compassion for the residents of Hong Kong because they are being denied the freedom they once had. The UK Government have obviously stepped in and offered some passage for many Hong Kongers to come here to live. That is good news, but would it not be better if they were able to stay in their own country and exercise the freedom they once had?

We also have the continuing repression in Tibet. It was a salient reminder, when I did my research before this debate, when I found out that the suppression in Tibet has been going on since 1950. That is five years before I was born, so Tibetans’ freedoms have been denied and restricted for a long, long time. I understand that the inauguration of a new Dalai Lama will be at the behest of the Chinese Communist party. A religious group cannot appoint its own leader in Tibet, but only because the Chinese Communist party will not let them. Again, that is another example of what is going on inside China, and of China’s influence and control.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am hoping to speak in the debate, so I will not intervene much. Just to be clear, whatever the Chinese Communist party Government think, the next Dalai Lama will be the responsibility of the people of Tibet and those entrusted by the current Dalai Lama to produce his successor. It will not be a result of what the Chinese Communist party allow or do not allow.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The information I have suggested that the Chinese Communist party was going to try to use its influence to ensure that any choice would be the choice of the Chinese Communist party, but if, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is some control over that, that would be one of the good things that could come out of this.

The issue of forced organ transplantation from members of the Falun Gong has been in my heart in this House for some 10 years now. It is being done on a commercial scale, and people have lost their lives. We must never forget the impact of that on the Falun Gong.

There is also the persecution of Christians. Churches have been destroyed, with secret police sitting in church services, taking notes of those who are there, and recording car numbers and which houses people return to. We have also had the rise of cyber-surveillance in China, which is another indication of those being imprisoned, beaten and injured all because they happen to have a different religious opinion. Today, we had some good news: the Government indicated that they would suspend their agreement with TikTok. That is good news when it comes to security issues, and we must welcome it.

In my time as an MP, I have seen the UK move from the “golden era” espoused by David Cameron and George Osborne to the confusion and lack of cohesion on China under this Government. In each case, the policies were driven by economics. Economics is of course relevant, but our policies must encompass other important factors such as our human rights obligations, and take into account our moral compass and what we believe. There is a real fear that focusing solely on money would mean that the UK’s fundamental beliefs in human rights and the rule of law are subjugated for the purpose of trade deals. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to that; it is one of the key issues, and I seek clarification and encouragement from the Minister on it. That would be great for China and other authoritarian states, but terrible for the UK’s standing in the world. I urge extreme caution and recommend change.

We are watching in real time the reduction of democratic states and the rise of authoritarian regimes. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 23 countries out of 167 monitored in 2020 could be called democracies. Fifty were considered authoritarian, and the others attained some form of flawed democracy or hybrid system, more likely than not under the control of one person.

China and Russia are leading the global rise in authoritarian states. They are seeking to build their own alliances, disrupt democratic processes in other countries, interfere in elections, and create their own channels for communication and cyber-control away from the norms and standards expected by international treaties. They support each other at institutions such as the United Nations, where the evil axis gathers together to defend each other’s interests and provide financial and political support for one another. The unfortunate thing for us is that democracies seem incapable of working together to fight back against that in a single-minded, focused manner, so I have great concerns.

The Chinese Government have committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against the Uyghurs since 2014. I and others, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is in the Chamber, have raised that issue. Abuse is also perpetrated against other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province. This is the largest scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since world war two. It is of that size; it is almost impossible to take in the number.

The United States has declared China’s human rights abuses a genocide, as have legislators in several other countries, including Canada, the Netherlands, Lithuania and France. We have even done so in this House of Commons in a debate led by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Parliaments of New Zealand, Belgium and the Czech Republic condemned the Chinese Government’s treatment of the Uyghurs as severe human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, which they truly are.

China continues to deny any wrongdoing and threatens politicians and even entire countries with retaliation simply for daring to raise and debate these issues. Diplomats are deployed to berate senior Government officials and speak at news stations to explain that everyone is wrong and at this is all just Sinophobia and anti-China rhetoric. No, it is not; it is much more than that.

Atrocities in Tibet have been going on since 1950—so much so that we barely react any more. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has spoken about Tibet for as long as I have been in this House, and long before that, I believe. He has highlighted it on many occasions. We cannot forget about it. We need to focus on what is happening there, which is hard to take in, with regularity and ferocity. Children are forced into re-education boarding schools as a way of eradicating their language and religion, with the hope that they will reject their own families and culture. Such policies have left a trail of family destruction and have cut cultural and historical memory.

China plans to choose the next Dalai Lama, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that those of the Dalai Lama’s religion will make that choice. I hope that will be the case and that China does not influence it in any way. We wait to see what happens.

Hong Kong wants to be a peaceful and prosperous city, a thriving economic and social hub in Asia, and truly global in its influence, but it has been brought to its knees in just three years since the introduction of the national security law.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tim Loughton

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is always a joy to come in on the fag end of a debate, when so many people have said everything that needs to be said and we have had a surfeit of lawyers on what is a very legalistic Bill—I am not one, thank goodness.

There is much good in this Bill. It is about the continuity of trade and the integrity of the United Kingdom, the principle of mutual recognition and the principle of non-discrimination of goods within the UK, and there is much practical stuff that, in the absence of an early agreement with the EU, we need to do. However, I have serious reservations about the inclusion of clauses 41 to 45 because of the implications well beyond this Bill, or indeed, well beyond our withdrawal process from the EU. They raise serious question marks about the intent and good name of the United Kingdom in being party to other international agreements.

When a Government Minister at the Dispatch Box states that the UK will be able to break the law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”, parliamentarians should prick up their ears and ask why and how, and demand proper justification from the Government and the Ministers to whom this part of the Bill gives considerable and ongoing powers. When the Government published this Bill in a hurry, that justification, I feel, was just not forthcoming from the Government, and on Second Reading, I therefore could not support the Bill. I would like to support the Government. I would like to support the Bill, but I need more assurances.

Amendment 4, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and which forced the hand of the Government with Government amendment 66, certainly helps, although it just gives an additional check without removing the powers reserved to the Government fundamentally. I say this as a concerned Brexiteer, but this is not a question of leave or remain. It has no impact on the UK leaving the EU fully after the end of the transition period on 31 December, but it does have an impact, potentially, on how we carry on our business in the world beyond the EU after 31 December.

I think the EU has behaved disgracefully throughout the negotiation period. It has exploited shamelessly the unique position of Northern Ireland as our land border with the EU but subordinate to the very important status conferred on it by the Good Friday agreement. It has used all sorts of underhand tactics to promote its pet causes, to keep the UK under the control of EU laws and regulations, be that British fisheries or state aid considerations and preventing us from being able to compete fairly, which is all we ask. “Unless you give us what we want, we will impose checks and tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there is nothing you can do to stop it”—runs the subtext of the negotiations.

It has now become clear that the EU is trying to reinterpret the terms of the withdrawal agreement to impose control over internal markets within the UK that no other country would tolerate and none has been required to agree to as part of any other EU trade deal. Of course, as we heard from many hon. Members, the EU is no stranger to breaking international agreements when that suits it, especially as regards the WTO. Has the EU really been negotiating an agreement in good faith, especially when a precedent has already been set of what was possible with a Canada-type deal?

Despite all this, it does not, and should not, mean that we, the United Kingdom, have to follow suit and act badly as well. The United Kingdom has a reputation for upholding the rule of law. The Conservative party has always had as one of its most cherished doctrines the importance of upholding the rule of law, so I share, for once, the concern of many lawyers who are worried that these clauses represent a significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere co-operation; that the Northern Ireland protocol and associated case law would have a subordinate role dependent on ministerial interpretation; and that this would have potentially a serious impact on the reputation of the UK as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution. This would not go down well, given the professed ambition of UK, quite rightly, to be a leader in global trade and a trailblazer for free trade in particular. As the former Attorney General put it, assenting to these proposals

“would amount to nothing more or less than the unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations to which we pledged our word less than 12 months ago, and which this parliament ratified in February.”

If we do not like what we signed, there is an arbitration process, so finally, I am genuinely bemused about why these clauses have been brought forward now and what they were intended to achieve. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Government amendments about them only being used in extremis, after all those other routes have been exhausted, and that includes the formal arbitration process. If we are going to pre-empt that arbitration process by saying that we will not go to arbitration, why include an arbitration process, and if we do believe in an arbitration process but we will not follow the result if it goes against us, that arbitration process is worthless and pointless.

Why now? Why not when negotiations have not come to a conclusion, if that is the case, despite the severe strain that this move has put on them? Why not nearer 31 December, if it has become clear that a deal has not been reached and the EU is determined to enact our worst-feared scenario? If this is a bargaining tactic, it does not seem to have gone down very well. It has not made negotiations any easier. It has not made a US trade deal any easier. It has not made any other trade deals any easier.

If this really is a bargaining tactic, it is necessary to be able to deliver on it, and there are doubts about whether the Bill can get through the other place. I am afraid that I just do not understand it. I hope that before we vote, Ministers will make everything magically clearer. I may give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but if it comes back for the vote of the Commons—not the Lords, notably—and those questions remain unanswered, I will not be able to support a Bill that retains these clauses unqualified. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. This is an intricate matter that is not helped by those with little or poor understanding of the Belfast agreement, or indeed of the truth of the troubles and our painful journey, using it as a political soundbite. Seeing Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, being led by a reporter to outline the consequences of this Bill for US-UK trade relations would have been laughable had it not highlighted the severe misunderstanding that many people are under.

This Bill is not designed to tear up the Belfast agreement; in fact, it is there to recognise that until the will of the people is to be Irish, we are to be considered British, and we are to remain so until a border poll is carried out. That border poll has not been carried out yet. The Belfast agreement underlines the notion of consent; for us to have an absolutely separate rule for state aid and other trade and transport damages the very principle of consent in the Belfast agreement. That is the reason that the Democratic Unionist party have tabled amendments on state aid—yet, for some, the message is not getting through just yet. Clauses 45 to 50 are very clear in their purpose.

The Ulster Farmers Union has also been very clear in relation to the levels of state aid in clause 43. The Republic of Ireland has a responsibility to its constituents to secure the best deals and the best advantages, but let us be clear: it is not our friend. It is at best a friendly rival, and at worst simply a rival with a voice to implement and effect change in Europe, against our voiceless efforts post Brexit. History has shown that when it comes to doing the right thing by refusing to allow criminals to take harbour over the border, it has no desire to help us as a nation. When I have listened to debates in the Dáil, I have never once come to the conclusion that it has our best interests at heart.

That is why my colleagues and I tabled our amendments to ensure that the fears of the Ulster Farmers Union and others are not realised. How, for example, do we allow fair trade for any of our dairy products when the mainland has state aid in place in the form of grants for dairy farmers? The answer is that we simply cannot. That is why we need to change state aid through these clauses tonight. Trade is at the core of our amendments.

Clause 41, which supports the delivery of the UK Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, does so by precluding new checks, controls or administrative processes on qualifying goods as they move from Northern Ireland to GB. It similarly precludes the use of existing checks, controls or processes being used for the first time, or for a new purpose or to a new extent. That does not show the destruction of the Belfast agreement, but it is necessary for the stability of food supply and state aid. Without it, we will certainly see the destruction of our country.

As the EU sees it, the UK has committed to comply with applicable notification and standstill obligations. That means that the ceiling put on state aid by the EU still applies in Northern Ireland in relation to trade. We will be constrained under the Northern Ireland protocol to a certain level of support for agriculture, only a certain proportion of which can be spent, for instance, on coupled payments. With that in mind, I believe that Northern Ireland could be constrained by these very rules. That is why tonight we wish to support our amendments and the clauses that the Government have put forward. We urge Members to do the same.