Gaza Healthcare System

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does. He is making a reputation for himself in the House as someone who speaks up on important issues, and today he has done so again. I thank him for that, and for giving us an opportunity to participate in the debate.

It is, of course, a goal for all that all countries around the globe have access to healthcare. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so health is a big issue for me, whether it be here in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. Also, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I think it is very important to speak up for those in areas where persecution takes place and for those who have experienced human rights abuses. These issues are so important, and I want to represent that.

Delivery of healthcare in Gaza is so important—it is vital, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Despite the acts of terror inflicted by Hamas, the children and the innocent people deserve better, and it is crucial that we recognise that. Today we can act collectively, and as individuals, throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and I often talk about these things. It grieves me greatly to see wee children suffering with the atrocities and things that happen to them. Pregnant women are deprived of basic medical supplies. Questions have to be asked. There is an urgent medical need. I know that the Minister and the Government will not be found wanting when it comes to doing their bit—I am convinced of that—but sometimes, collectively, we need to do things in conjunction with other countries worldwide.

To start with, there is a severe strain on Gaza’s healthcare system, especially for children, pregnant women and those with chronic illnesses. That is sometimes forgotten. Mental health, which was mentioned in an intervention, is another massive issue. In my constituency of Strangford we have two charities that help. One is Samaritan’s Purse, which is run by Gillian Gilliland, our local rep. It helps in Gaza and elsewhere around the world. Christian Aid is another organisation that is very much to the fore and active in getting money in Ards and Strangford, and also provides practical and physical help. Those organisations do their bit across Northern Ireland and respond in areas in need of humanitarian aid. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, such organisations are often the first to answer.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in this important debate. Does he agree that there is an overwhelming level of concern among constituents across the country about the restrictions on international aid organisations such as Christian Aid? There is a genuine concern that after the war, people will still suffer because of restricted access.

[Jim Shannon]

I am no different from anybody else; I hear the same points that the hon. Lady refers to. Everyone else in this room—and those who are not in this room—will have the same issues. I mentioned those two organisations because they are physically and practically active in the middle east and elsewhere. Repeated conflict will lead to limited access to medical supplies alongside the pressure on the hospital infrastructure. In addition, Hamas’s administration policies and ongoing issues complicate healthcare delivery and lead to a significant impact on its own people—residents on both sides of the Gaza strip, who are devastated and losing livelihoods because of the lack of available healthcare delivery.

Healthy Relationships

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for setting the scene incredibly well and allowing us all to participate in this debate. As a husband, father and grandfather, the motion urged me to take a moment to think: what is a healthy relationship? I posed this question to myself before I came here, and I have been thinking about it in relation to how we might contribute to the debate. It is a question we should all ask ourselves, so I thank the hon. Lady for giving us pause today. If we are honest, we can all work on healthy relationships to make them that bit better and more successful. From partners to children, friends and colleagues, finding a healthier balance is something we all can and must do.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well. We very much look forward to hearing her responses to our questions.

Many have referred to grandchildren, and my two grandchildren are staying with me at the minute. We live on a farm, and my son—along with his wife and the two children—is going to build a house on the farm. I always think about this when I come home after a hard week—and sometimes the weeks are incredibly difficult, with the pressures of life. Wee Freya is only five, and she always tells you that she loves you. Wee Ezra is only three, but he has that big smile. Both those things show just how important grandchildren are. These relationships are incredibly important for us all, and I so value the opportunity to have grandchildren who can lift you when you do not feel very much like being lifted. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has her children, and they lift her, and others in this Chamber will know the importance of those things.

It is also clear that part of having healthy relationships is ensuring that our children and grandchildren understand what healthy is. To me, a healthy relationship is a respectful one, which I think is incredible. Am I perfect? I am far from perfect. I probably say things I should not say and do things I should not do—I regret it often—but I understand that respecting a loved one means watching our words and actions. If we respect them as we should, and as I do, we will be at pains to control our tempers or hurtful words.

I have three sons who are each married and have two children, and I know that my daughters-in-law and my sons are teaching their children that they are worth more than harsh words or actions, and that they are treasures worthy of a mutually respectful relationship. Where does that happen? It is done in the home, first of all, and we do it in our own lives, as we should, but it is also done in schools. Many schools in my area are always talking about how we build relationships. As a Christian, I should mention the importance of churches when it comes to a young man meeting a young woman, or vice versa. Churches give couples time to build their relationships and try to guide them in a way that they can understand and use in their lives. There is so much out there that we need to do.

We have incredible problems in Northern Ireland. There are probably problems across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the message does not seem to have landed well in Northern Ireland. We have struggled with unhealthy relationships and, notably, both genders are the perpetrators. Domestic abuse remains a critical issue in Northern Ireland, according for nearly 20% of all recorded crime. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—it is a devolved matter—but it is worth giving the figures to add to the debate.

While reported incidents have overall shown a slight decline recently, certain categories such as sexual offences have seen an increase. Police recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents and almost 18,500 domestic abuse crimes in the 2024-25 financial year. Wow, that is incredible. That is scary. On average, the Police Service of Northern Ireland responds to domestic abuse incidents every 17 minutes. Females represent some 67% of victims, while males represent some 33%. That is the highest male proportion recorded to date. One in four women in Northern Ireland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime.

There are a number of tragedies that must be recorded. There were eight domestic abuse motivated homicides recorded between 2024 and 2025, compared to six during the previous 12-month period. That is simply too many lives lost. That is too many children devastated, because there are those that are left behind, too. Sometimes we look at the person—the individual—but there are those that are left behind: the children, the mums and dads and all of the families who are mourning. It simply did not need to happen.

A further disturbing aspect of domestic abuse is the effect that it has on children. Over 23,000 referrals were made to support children affected by domestic abuse through school-based programmes in the past year in Northern Ireland. Boards of governors are now tabling Operation Encompass on each meeting agenda. Again, I underline the importance of schools to try and help in that area. That is a partnership between the PSNI and schools. If the police attend domestic incidents where a child is present, they notify the child’s school by the next morning so that immediate trauma-informed support can be provided. That wee child could be greatly disturbed by what they may have witnessed the night or day before. It is really important that these things are put in place.

My heart, and indeed, all our hearts ache for the children who are living with bad examples of healthy relationships. They may witness that every day. They have been conditioned to accept what is unacceptable. We all have a duty to ensure that schools have funding available to put on programmes and take time to provide a safe space and a listening ear. Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to hear what her thoughts are, because that is the only way that we can help to break the generational acceptance of the unacceptable. That is something that each of us in this Chamber, both individually and collectively as a House, strives for. It is something that I believe we can and will change. I have no doubt whatever that those who are present, and many who were not able to be, are committed to that change. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has done us all a massive favour by giving us the opportunity to come and make a contribution.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Before I move to the Front Benches, does anyone else wish to speak?

Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Christine Jardine]

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

Public Sector Pensions: McCloud Remedy

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a very good point, which I will come to later. I agree completely; this has been particularly difficult for many people in the light of the crises we have faced in recent years, with the soaring cost of living and sky-high energy bills.

This is what has happened to my constituents in Edinburgh West who have come to me with their issues with the administration of the remedy—not the remedy, but the administration of it—and the possible future impact on other pension schemes. One of my constituents who was affected is a retired police officer who served 25 years. His pension scheme was forcibly changed in 2017 to the CARE—career average revalued earnings—scheme, which was found to be discriminatory. He retired in February 2023 with his 25% lump sum, on the assumption that the remedial scheme would be in place by October that year. He estimates that he is now owed more than £30,000 in terms of both his commuted lump sum from the new scheme and the lower monthly pension. He is also one of thousands of immediate detriment officers still waiting for their remediation letter from the pension authorities, despite claims that the number of retired officers receiving these has accelerated, including in Scotland.

Another constituent started working for Lothian and Borders police, as it was, in 1996 and retired in 2022, knowing he would only receive his pension for his service between 1996 and 2015, while the remedy was calculated. He was told at the time that he would receive his remediable service statement by April 2025, three years after his retirement. He also estimates a loss in pension income of more than £30,000, given that seven years of his service to our community was not counted when he first retired.

A third constituent of mine has raised a possible issue that he faces when retiring with an NHS pension. The Government’s approach to NHS pension remedies means that pension growth will be calculated under an older scheme from 2008, even if he believes this rollback leaves those in the middle of their careers vulnerable to artificial breaches of the annual pension allowance and significant income tax charges because of the set-up of the 2008 scheme used for calculation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain her focus, which is clearly on the McCloud remedy. The McCloud remedy will have implications on tax for some members, with some needing to pay more tax—she has outlined three—and others being entitled to a refund. My constituents in Strangford are experiencing the same issue as those in Edinburgh West and are in a similar position of uncertainty. Does she agree that discussion with financial advisers is essential, and for those who do not have access to financial advisers, the employer—the national health service, in the case of my constituents—must provide workshops to ensure that workers can understand what their choice will mean in reality?

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. This issue has affected all our constituents, in a different way. His is exactly the sort of point that I hope the Minister may be able to address.

All the cases that we have mentioned show the impact that the remedy process has had on people who have dedicated their lives to serving our communities. It is unfair and must be tackled. In written answers to myself and other hon. Members, Ministers have said that it is up to individual pension schemes and their managers to implement the remedy rather than the relevant Government Department, but that seems to allow the schemes to delay, or leaves them without the resources and support that they need to process claims at pace. Will the Minister outline how the Government work with these authorities to ensure rapid delivery of remedial pay?

What steps will the Government take to ensure that pension authorities can also deliver RSS notices to speed up the process of calculating and awarding remedial pay? That is particularly important for police pensions, as there appears to be a severe backlog in issuing those notices to retired officers to allow them to make their choice under the law. That is leaving my constituents in Edinburgh West and others facing years of further uncertainty on their finances, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referenced, and losing out on money that they are entitled to for their work.

As policing is devolved in both Scotland and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Northern Ireland, how are the Government working with the devolved Administrations on these pension schemes to share best practice across Departments, provide increased resource and finally give these public servants, who have served our communities, taught our children and kept us safe for so long, the safety, security and financial stability that they deserve for their retirement? Surely that is what they are entitled to.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for raising this issue. He and I have very different opinions, as he knows, but we are both committed to seeing a just peace for the people of Gaza and Israel, securing the hope of a different future for every child in that area, regardless of race or religion. That is the desire that I work towards, knowing it to be the aim of this House. I will always be a proud friend of Israel and will speak from that perspective.

I must indicate that there is a time for peace through strength, which is what is needed. Israel was mercilessly attacked; the hostage releases, along with the parading of infant bodies in coffins, highlight the mentality of those who carried out the 7 October atrocities. Some 1,200 were killed—men, women and children—and women were raped with indescribable violence by Hamas terrorists. With Hamas there is clearly no remorse, but there is a clear hatred.

When people know where they stand and that the scorpion can sting, they protect themselves, which is what Israel does. Hamas can do nothing other than hate Israel and seek her eradication, and I would never support calls for Israel not to have the means to defend herself, as she rightly does.

I have lived through terrorism and the troubles and beyond. I am thankful that my children have never checked below their cars, as their dad did, or been stopped at an army checkpoint. They do not remember the days of the bombs exploding and the pain of innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not advocate war; I have felt the pain of it. However, I know that nations must retain an ability to show that they can and will defend their people when peace is no longer an option.

Israel did not use its military prowess until atrocities were carried out on it. It is my hope that the time has come for a solution for Israel and the decent people of Gaza. I will support that, but I will never attempt to bring Israel to the negotiating peace table with a hand tied behind their back, while acknowledging that the hatred of Hamas has not abated, and therefore neither has the threat to Israel. I want peace, but I want a lasting peace, and that will not happen while Hamas retain any control or ability to carry out their desire. These are the same Hamas terrorists who hid behind women’s skirts in schools and hospitals—that is the sort of terrorists they are.

The rules cannot change and those who hate Israel are the main players in the game. Israel must have access to weapons and the support that they deserve. They must also have access to wise counsel to help to provide a plan and a way forward. I hope that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to be a friend to Israel in word, wisdom and deed, as I am every day of my life and indeed will be for the foreseeable future, and for every breath that I have in this world.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call Luke Akehurst—please keep it brief, as you have had several interventions.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has not wound up the debate.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

We are out of time. The hon. Member indicated at the start that he did not mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the value of apprenticeships and National Apprenticeships Week.

Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the availability of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about what is a vital and, I think, under-recognised issue. I wish I did not have to, and that all the necessary medicines were available for all of the serious, life-changing conditions we face, but the reality at the moment is that they are not. Specifically, I would like to talk about type 2 diabetes, which is more common than type 1 and can go undiagnosed for years.

To be clear about what we are talking about, if someone’s body does not make enough insulin or what it makes does not work properly, the result is high blood sugar levels—type 2 diabetes. If untreated, that increases the risks of serious problems with their eyes, feet, heart and nervous system. High blood sugar levels can cause serious complications, potentially at great cost to individuals, but also to the national health service. The reality is that any of us can develop type 2 diabetes, but it mostly affects people over 25, and often those who have a family history of it.

What about treatment and medication? We know there is currently no cure, but we also know that type 2 diabetes can be put into remission by losing weight. We all know that eating well and exercising are the key to a healthy lifestyle, and that is never truer than with preventing and reversing the onset of type 2 diabetes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I am a type 2 diabetic—I declare an interest as such—and when I was diagnosed some 13 or 14 years ago, I went on a weight loss course right away. The doctor told me, “You lose weight!” I lost about 4 stone, and I have kept it off, but that did not stop the diabetes in its entirety. I still have it, and I still have to be very careful about what I eat.

The point I want to make is that there are recent indications that certain diabetes treatments can also be successful for weight loss, but weight loss is really important at least for the first stage of diabetes, and priority for such treatments must be given to those with type 2 diabetes before, with respect, those who are finding success with them for weight loss. How can the Minister and our Government encourage such guidelines to be firmly set in place?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that point is at the heart of the matter. We have to ensure that the supply of drugs, which is short at the moment, is prioritised for those who need them for important health reasons.

A healthy weight, as the hon. Member said, and keeping active make it easier for someone’s body to manage their blood sugar levels and help prevent insulin resistance, which can lead to type 2 diabetes. Research has shown that, for some people, a combination of lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 50%, but sufferers may also need to take diabetes medication such as metformin and insulin, as well as making changes to their lifestyle.

In the UK, 4.6 million people have type 2 diabetes and around 13.6 million are at risk of developing it. People often need help, such as intervention and medicines. Last year, I called on the UK Government to take action on the shortage of medicines for type 2 diabetes patients, after a constituent came to me concerned that her treatment and her health would be impacted by a shortage of the diabetes drugs she needed. They are known as GLP-1 RAs—glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists—and include one of the most common drugs, semaglutide.

As for many other manufactured drugs, there is currently a supply problem with semaglutide. In this case, the problem has been made worse, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, by the fact that the same drugs are effective for weight loss. The very thing that semaglutide does to help diabetes patients is making it difficult for them to access it.

I wrote to the Scottish Government, who told me they did not expect the supply to return to normal until mid-way through this year. I appreciate that that is not the most helpful response, but in some ways it is understandable, because medicine supply and licensing is a reserved matter. That is why I am raising it with the UK Government. We have seen issues with drug shortages beyond diabetes, and that is why I am so concerned at the slow response to the lack of medication.

Patients find themselves stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In Scotland, they have the Scottish Government unable to act, and they perceive the UK Government to be very slow to act. It seems that neither Government have realised how potentially serious this situation could be for patients who use these drugs daily. For a patient to be in a position where they do not know whether they can get what they need to help them get well and keep them healthy is simply not acceptable. I have heard from people in my constituency and beyond about the impact that the situation is having on their lives.

Post Office Services: Edinburgh West

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The subject of the debate is post office services in Edinburgh West. Although it is about my constituency, the problem could just as easily apply to many constituencies throughout the country. Indeed, I have not spoken to a single Member who has not said that their constituency faces the same problem with post office closures as we face in Edinburgh West.

When I was thinking about the debate, I wondered what the answer might be if I asked any of the children in my constituency what a post office was and what they used it for. I also thought they might look at me with astonishment if I told them that what they now regard as part of the local shop was once the organisation that provided everything from our telephone services at home, our mail and all sorts of Government forms, to pensions and stamps.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. Last week, the parliamentary group of the Democratic Unionist party met the Northern Ireland sub-postmasters association. Every one of those issues that she mentions were discussed with us. We were told that those opportunities were no longer available in the post office, by which I mean MOTs, car tax renewals, and passport renewals. The post office was also used as a community hub. All of those things highlight how important post offices were. I know that the hon. Lady has said all of that, so I hope that, in his response, the Minister can give us some succour and respite in relation to what the post offices can and should do.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. These were all vital services. Not so very long ago, post offices were central to communities up and down the country. They also provided some of the most spectacular examples of architecture, and they dominated our town centres. The local post office was where I applied for my first driving licence. I opened my first savings account there and queued for what seemed like hours every Christmas to make sure that the family’s cards and presents went off safely to various parts of Australia and Canada—but not any more. The Post Office I grew up with in the 1960s had 25,000 branches. In 2021, that figure had more than halved to 11,415, with more than half of those listed as vulnerable. The organisation itself lost £597 million in the same year.

In Scotland we have the biggest problem in the UK, having lost more than 6% of our post offices in the past two years alone. In Edinburgh West, two have closed and one has been relocated to a different area in the past year. As I said earlier, this problem is not isolated to Scotland or to Edinburgh West. One third of rural post offices are now offered as part-time outreach services.

Sub-postmasters and Sub-postmistresses: Remuneration

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I share what I believe was possibly the frustration of many other speakers tonight that we are so close to achieving what we want the Bill to achieve, yet we seem unable to cross that final line. I appreciate the efforts made by the Government and everyone else, and by the Minister in particular, but I still have reservations about the Bill—particularly about the vulnerability of migrant women, and specifically about amendment 40B. The amendment in lieu laid down by the Minister is a start, but it still does not go far enough and it fails to capture the one key thing that all our amendments and speeches have said, and everything we have heard this evening: waiting for a stalker or serial domestic abuser to get a conviction for 12 months before considering them for this is way too late.

We know that most stalking victims do not go to the police. This is about cumulative obsessive behaviour. Well-intentioned though the legislation is, we simply do not feel it is going far enough. Between 15 March and 19 April, another 16 women have been murdered—that is between the Report stage in the Lords and ping-pong last week. The Government’s inaction has to end. We have to address this issue now. We have to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill that so many people in this place have worked so hard for over the past four years is achieved by the end of this week.

The same recommendations have been made over the years and the same reviews have been repeated over and over, yet nothing is changing. Rarely are the recommendations put into place and we have seen systemic failures over many years, with widespread misogyny, institutionalised sexism and a gender bias. No amount of guidance or training has changed that across the past two decades. In fact, matters are getting worse. That is why we need this to be in the legislation.

Many Members have mentioned the overwhelmingly depressing statistics about one woman being murdered every three days by a man, and a woman being murdered every four days by an ex or a current partner. It is simply not acceptable. We are all agreed, but we must find a solution. I appreciate the steps that the Government have taken so far to compromise to meet people halfway, but I still think that this will take another step. That is why I, like the Liberal Democrats, will be rejecting the Government’s amendment in lieu this evening.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Briefly, I wish to highlight my concerns on the issue of the identification, monitoring and management of serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators, and the provisions that refer to that. I base most of the comments I make in this Chamber on personal experience—on the people I meet in my constituency office and have helped and tried to help over the years.

I recall sitting in my office looking at the face of a victim, sometimes sitting beside the perpetrator, and feeling helpless and hopeless. I could see what was going on. I could also understand that my words could make the situation more difficult for the victim. So I found myself on some occasions just being silent and listening, when everything within me cried out to speak, act and help. That is what I wanted to do, but I felt that sensitivity was more important. All too often, I have tried to distract a partner while the staff attempted to assure the victim that they were here to help wherever they needed and in confidence. All too often, I have offered help, only to hear a victim say, “No one would believe me because he is a pillar of society.” That proves that, irrespective of position, those in the highest positions and the lowest positions of the land can abuse ladies.

The Lords amendment on this brings clarity on repeated offences, broadening things to include serious harm, sexual violence and stalking, among other specifications. It makes it crystal clear and a little easier to help those victims. It offers them greater scope and, with that, greater support. It makes it clear that the offences clearly listed will never be acceptable. It makes it clear that all those listed offences are taken seriously and that a strategy to deal with this must be a Government priority.

This clarity is welcome. This House must send a unified message on this Bill today. I believe that the Minister is very much committed to making the changes that are necessary to pull all of the concerns and thoughts of Members together, and provide reassurance that when we pass the Bill it is not simply the best we can do, but the best possible—not that we offer help, support and recognition to as many victims as possible, but that we have left no victim alone without legislation to protect them.

It is my desire, when I am faced with cases of domestic abuse—unfortunately, my staff and I have been faced with such cases—to have the confidence to be able to tell the victim, “All the elements, from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the courts, are designed with your needs in mind. You do not have to do this alone. The police and the courts will walk alongside you, and give you the protection you want.” I long to send that message. I look again to the Minister for clarity that this is what we are saying tonight in this Chamber.

Assisted Dying Law

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I agree that better mental health care should be available at all points in our lives. For every decision that we have to make, we should have support. If we are allowed to look again at the current law and the blanket ban, the question of what mental support exists is the sort of thing we should look at.

As I said, I am grateful to the constituent I mentioned, because that example highlights the invidious position in which everyone is put by the current law and its blanket ban. That includes the patient who knows they are going to die, and who simply wants help to ease their way through it; the medical staff who must not help; and the families who are powerless to support their loved ones, because the law threatens them with criminal procedures.

A recent policy paper considered by the homicide committee of the National Police Chiefs’ Council showed that investigators are frustrated with the current legislation, and that families whose loved ones have had assisted deaths are losing confidence in the police and criminal justice system. Families such as the Whaleys and Ecclestons, who suffered the ordeal of court cases, are perhaps the highest profile examples of how the law fails those who are facing their final days, and fails their loved ones. Sadly, they represent merely the tip of the iceberg.

Dignity in Dying has calculated that every eight days, someone from the United Kingdom travels to Switzerland for an assisted death, with their grieving families often treated as criminals once they return. Every year in England and Wales alone, an estimated 300 people take their own lives because they are faced with a terminal diagnosis and it seems their only option. A great many more are beyond the reach of palliative care, which, sadly, needs more investment, and they die in agony. Perhaps the cruellest thing of all is that this can all be avoided if people can afford it.

The law has created a two-tier system. If someone has more than £10,000, they can travel to Switzerland or elsewhere for the end-of-life care of their choice. It is time to look at whether and how our law can be improved. There is ample evidence that the majority of the public would support a change. According to the most recent surveys, 84% would like to see a change. They want a very narrow and specific change—perhaps that addresses some of the points that have been made—for those in the final stages of a terminal illness who are mentally capable of making a decision, but they do want a change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. We had a discussion today, and we have very different opinions; clearly, I do not agree with what she is saying. The answer is not legalising assisted suicide. The answer is to help, to support and to be compassionate towards families. Does she acknowledge the good work that is done by many charities, particularly Macmillan, whose compassion and love make the unimaginable a little bit more bearable?

[Christine Jardine]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that Marie Curie, Macmillan and other charities do outstanding work. The people who work in hospices up and down the country, and those who provide palliative care in our hospitals, perform an unenviable role and they are beyond reproach. However, it is not my view that people should have only that choice. For me, this is about being able to decide either to have palliative care—it should be there, and it should provide support—or to make another choice. That should be up to the individual, and the law should support them in that. As I said, 84% of people, according to the most recent surveys, would support a change.

Edinburgh Airport: Flight Paths

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I was going to come on to say that although my constituents who live directly around the airport are affected, I appreciate that communities are affected right across not only Lothian but Fife and as far as Falkirk.

This issue is also vital to the airport itself, which is not only a gateway to Edinburgh and Scotland, but increasingly a gateway to the UK from the United States, Europe, the middle east and, most recently, China. It is one of the biggest employers in my constituency and is a lynchpin of both the local and Scottish economies. It is, though, important to ensure a balance between what is good for jobs and our economy and the welfare of those communities that live side-by-side with the airport or under its flight path. We all know that the operation of airports inevitably impacts on surrounding residents, who have to put up with the high level of noise created by the aircraft.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate and gently reminded her that Belfast City airport consulted widely with the community around the airport, because that was important to do. There is a 9 pm restriction on flights coming into the airport: if a flight comes in after 9 pm, it is fined. Has she considered what Belfast City airport has done as an example of what could happen elsewhere if the airports, communities and Government decide to do something? That could be successful.

[Christine Jardine]

I was going to mention the timing of flights at Edinburgh airport and other airports during the night, which is currently under discussion.

As anyone who has lived under a flight path will know, the constant whine of jet engines every few minutes can be enough to raise one’s blood pressure, as I know from personal experience. Studies have shown that aircraft noise can be associated with a range of health problems.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jim Shannon

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is fair to say that my party broadly supports much of this Bill, which is a vital component in our continued and smooth co-operation with the EU, should Brexit go ahead, but that support is not without qualification, which I shall come to shortly. As an EU member, we are assumed to be compliant with the requirements of the Union, but as a third party we will be required to demonstrate a suitable standard of protections. Failure to do this would jeopardise the co-operation that even the most zealous Brexiteers, I should imagine, want to maintain in defence and security.

The Data Protection Bill and the general data protection regulation bring existing best practice into law. This is not an onerous burden; it is a natural progression for information rights in the digital age. However, we have reservations about some aspects that we will discuss later. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) intends to speak about the proposed immigration exemptions. I had intended to concentrate on areas that deal with our personal data and the help that industry and charity organisations will need to cope with this regulation, but as the debate has progressed, I have become increasingly concerned about the Government’s intention to overthrow the amendment by the House of Lords. The Data Protection Bill is an important vehicle through which to bring forward recommendations from the Leveson inquiry, as this House promised to do. Data processing for investigative journalism purposes must strike a balance between press freedom and the individual’s right to privacy.

As a journalist, I value freedom of speech and freedom of the press as much as any other person. As a journalist, I was always impressed by and proud of colleagues who uncovered miscarriages of justice, political corruption or malpractice in India, for example. The freedom of the press to scrutinise and hold to account those in power—as the hon. Member for Dudley South said, the relationship between journalists and politicians should not be an easy one—is vital in a democracy. It must not, however, be at the cost of the individual—to their privacy in times of grief or hardship, to their hard-won personal and professional reputations—or mean chasing them when they have done nothing wrong other than perhaps disagree with the stance of a newspaper. That cannot be the way.

Newspapers in this country are not free of regulation. Broadcasting has to apply the standards set by Ofcom. Newspapers have to abide by the law of libel, contempt of court and the criminal code. All those things are necessary, but in an increasingly digital age it is necessary to ensure that all publications abide by data protection regulations. It is more than 20 years since Calcutt warned the press that they were drinking in the last chance saloon. Well, they have had their drink and frankly they have been thrown out. The Press Council failed; the Press Complaints Commission failed; and this House promised to bring forward a statutorily underpinned body. Self-regulation with statutory underpinning—it is good enough for every other industry, it is good enough for the Law Society, so why are we not prepared to follow through for the press? The vast majority of journalists are honourable. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, we are talking about a small minority, but that small minority can do immense damage to individual’s lives—we saw it with the McCanns, with Milly Dowler and with the Hillsborough inquiry—and it is not good enough for us to say they are doing a good enough job; they patently are not, which is why I hope the House will uphold the amendments passed in the other place.

I turn now to what I had intended to speak about: the rights of individuals and the problem many have in talking about data and regulation. It sounds like a technical issue—something that does not affect them directly in their everyday lives. Algorithms are a mystery that many of us have no desire to investigate, never mind solve, yet they are a major influence in our increasingly technology-driven and social media-driven lives. Data harvesting can sneak into every corner of our existence, undertaken by public and private organisations—those we deal with and many that just want to deal with us, or use what they know about us. The information we provide tells them how to sell us everything from cars and mortgages to life insurance and funerals. As more and more information about our daily lives is digitally recorded, it is important that individuals have more control. With the passing of the Bill, we should all be able to rest assured that the information is being used both ethically and responsibly, including by the national and regional press, and that we have access to ensure that it is accurate, whether it is available to individuals or public or private bodies.

We should take into account that the information we provide can be used to infer information we have not given. For example, I am reliably informed that people who like curly fries are more likely to have high IQs. If someone was to pass on that culinary preference with their data, floods of adverts aimed at highly intelligent curly fries fans would be likely to follow. Occasionally, of course, it can all go wrong. Just after suffering a recent bereavement, I was in touch with a nationally known undertaker. Immediately afterwards, I was bombarded with adverts about planning for my own funeral, which is not really what anyone in that position wants. That is just an illustration of why it is important to the public that they have the right to view and correct or delete their own personal data, as laid out in the Bill. None of us wants false information out there about us that could prejudice decisions or jeopardise our security.

That, surely, is particularly important in relation to the many young people—a significant number of them children—who are regularly online. Ofcom estimates that 99% of under-16s are online for nearly 21 hours a week. The Children’s Society and YoungMinds surveyed more than 1,000 young people about their online experiences, both generally and more specifically with regard to cyber-bullying, and found that 61% of the under-18s who were surveyed had had their first experience of social media before the age of 13.

In setting the age of consent, it is important to be realistic about the lives of young people. Sixteen may not be an appropriate age of consent, or a realistic reflection of a situation in which practice allows only over-13s to have an account, but with no age verification. Young people need to learn their data and privacy rights much earlier, and that should be a mandatory part of their personal, social, health and economic education at school.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to the protection of children, there is a greater need for parents and guardians to be involved, but we often find that the care that ought to be there is not there. Has the hon. Lady any thoughts about how we could improve the situation?

[Christine Jardine]

I believe that parents should take more responsibility, but I think that the answer is to educate the children themselves and make them aware of the danger.

It will be important for the Government to support those who will feel extra strain as a result of the Bill, such as small and medium-sized enterprises and, indeed, the Information Commissioner’s Office itself. The ICO will have a much more proactive role in policing data protection matters and will be required to produce masses of guidance both now and after May. The office must be properly resourced to do its important job. There should also be targeted support for charities.

Many sectors—manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and financial services—are anxious for the free flow of data between ourselves and the European Union to continue with minimum disruption post Brexit. In an increasingly digital economy and society, that is critical for both our international trade and the protection of our rights of privacy. We must get this legislation right, and, as I said earlier, I believe that that will mean upholding the amendments passed in the other place.