Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to people that if we are going to have continuous interventions, and if they continue to make the same intervention, they should not be shocked if they end up at the bottom of the list? I want to help people, because all this does is soak up time. Jim Shannon will be a good example.
Jim Shannon
Mr Speaker, I will always be at the end of the list, so it is important for me to make an intervention. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) set the scene very well on Second Reading, but since then things have changed. For instance, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has voiced strong concerns in opposition to the Bill about judicial oversight, robust protections against coercion and so on, as well as the effect it will have on vulnerable groups such as those with dementia, Down syndrome or mental illnesses. Does the hon. Lady not respect the viewpoints of my constituents who tell me that they are opposed to the Bill in principle and all the things that are coming forward? The new clause does not address the issues that the hon. Lady is referring to.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he is absolutely right that there are a range of views on this issue, and I am deeply respectful of that. I take all those points into consideration as we embark on this debate again today.
Perhaps most importantly, Mr Speaker, I have spoken to terminally ill people themselves over recent months. It is impossible to know what it must feel like to receive a terminal diagnosis and I have nothing but admiration for people who have bravely spoken about their personal situations, some publicly—including, of course, Dame Esther Rantzen—and others who have done so privately, many by emailing their MP. I know mine is not the only inbox full of such emails.
Kim Leadbeater
I will just finish this point. If we refer to the impact assessment, the number of people who will access assisted dying in the first few years will be very small. I think there are around 4,500 psychiatrists in the country, but there is also a period of time of a number of years to do the training required for psychiatrists taking part in the process, so I would not anticipate any problems there.
Kim Leadbeater
I will keep going, if I may, because I think I have been fairly fair.
Amendment 78 ensures that all three members of the panel must agree before a certificate of eligibility is issued, so abstentions cannot result in approval. The amendment came about as a result of discussions in Committee. It is really important to clarify that when the panel of experts is doing its work, its decision must be unanimous for a certificate of eligibility to be granted and for the patient to proceed. If a panel member abstains, no certificate of eligibility can be granted to the person.
Schedule 2 also sets out that the panel must give reasons for its decision in each case. This is really important. Amendment 79 ensures that those reasons—the reasons for the panel’s decision—are communicated in writing in a document to the person to whom the referral in question relates, the co-ordinating doctor and the commissioner. This creates clear channels of communication and will enable those people to fully understand the expert panel’s decisions.
Kim Leadbeater
I am going to finish, if I may, because other people want to speak.
Amendment 14, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah)—another outstanding member of the Committee—states:
“A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1) shall not be considered to meet those requirements solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking.”
I suspect the amendment has been put forward as a result of the lengthy discussions in Committee regarding whether people with anorexia would be eligible for an assisted death under the Bill. In my previous career before becoming an MP, I worked with a number of people with eating disorders. I am very aware of the hugely sensitive and complex issues surrounding disordered eating, particularly anorexia. I also know that this is a personal issue for a number of colleagues across the House, as a result of their own experiences. Eating disorders cause huge distress for individuals, their families and loved ones, but with care and the right treatment, it is possible for people to recover and to go back to leading a full and fulfilling life.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The amendment is not specifically about eating disorders; there is a broader context. I will come to that later.
It is with that experience in mind—my own personal experience and having spoken to many colleagues on this issue—that I say now, as I said in Committee, that under the Bill as it stands, having anorexia would not qualify a person to be eligible for an assisted death. The Bill is clear that a person cannot be considered terminally ill on the basis only of a mental disorder. Clause 2 makes it clear that a person must have an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment. Anorexia is a serious mental health condition that is not inevitably progressive and can, thankfully, be reversed by treatment. Of course, at every stage of the assisted dying process the patient must be found to have capacity to make the decision, and this is checked repeatedly throughout the process. Someone with severe anorexia would be highly unlikely to be assessed to have capacity to make a decision on assisted dying.
The other tragic reality is that if a patient was so ill as a result of not eating and drinking for whatever reason, they would die before the process of assisted dying was able to take place, as it could take up to two months to complete all the stages of the process as set out in the Bill, and the latest clinical guidance states that the general range of survival once voluntary stopping of eating and drinking has begun is between seven and 21 days. Stopping eating and drinking also leads to a range of symptoms that would make meaningful conversations, as required by the Bill, impossible.
Having said that, I know that some people have expressed concerns that the severe physical consequences of a decision to stop eating or drinking could still enable someone to claim eligibility for assisted dying when they would not otherwise be able to do so, and I believe that is the motivation behind amendment 14.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is very kind. At the moment, she is outlining the case for those who have problems with their eating and their diets almost to the point where they are unable to make their own decisions, and she is outlining what is going to happen here. What would she say about the situation in Belgium and in Canada, where assisted dying has been legalised for people with eating disorders? This may progress from what she has said and go way beyond that, as has been proven in other countries across the world.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. The eligibility criteria in this Bill are very different from those in the jurisdictions he mentions—people with mental health conditions are not eligible for assisted dying under the provisions of this Bill.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for tabling her amendments. Amendments that would have protected palliative care and hospices from facilitating assisted suicide services on their premises for ethical or practical reasons have been rejected, so the Bill leaves hospices with little choice but to comply. It also puts them in a difficult position when it comes to funding. Hospices will also have to provide a staff member to do this work. The problems that will create for palliative care and hospices cannot be ignored. The Bill goes against that right in its totality.
Gavi and the Global Fund
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on setting the scene so well. It is an incredible debate, which is why Members are here to make a contribution.
Gavi has so far immunised 1.1 billion children, and it is estimated to have averted more than 18.8 million deaths globally. If we want a success story and something that is worth investing in, this is the scheme. Childhood mortality in under-fives has been reduced by over 50%, and vaccine-preventable deaths are down by 70%. That is another reason for supporting Gavi and the Global Fund.
Like the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), I will focus on women and girls, because it is important that we look at the impact on them. It is a fact that women and girls are disproportionately affected by infectious diseases, and targeted investments in their health can drive broader social and economic progress. Indeed, vaccination results in better health, which in turn supports gender equality by enabling women and girls to learn, work and take an active role in their community, promoting them as individuals.
Women and girls accounted for 63% of all HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria in pregnancy leads to over 10,000 maternal deaths and 200,000 infant deaths. These are not just figures but families, individuals, mothers and children. Tuberculosis remains a leading infectious cause of death among women of reproductive age. The Global Fund provides 76% of all international financing for TB vaccinations. However, cuts to the US Agency for International Development, and the UK Government’s decision to cut ODA, will knock back the very scheme that has done so much to advance the cause. I look to the Minister, who is always very responsive. I know he does not hold the purse strings, but I am sure his response will be helpful.
Gavi also funds maternal tetanus immunisation and has helped to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus in over 20 countries. All of those things are happening because of Gavi and these organisations. Its work to prevent malaria in children and pregnant women cannot be ignored either.
To conclude, I ask the Minister how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is making the case in spending review process for the work that the Global Fund, Gavi and Unitaid do in prioritising women and girls’ health and supporting gender equality. If discussions are being held about a change in investment in those funds, how can Government ensure that women and girls, so often ignored and put down in their own communities, have access to the most basic immunisation? Will the Minister to commit to ensuring that the Government play their part for the most vulnerable women and children throughout the world?
The UK has done good work. We must continue that in the most cost-effective way possible. I believe the Minister is seeking that balance, and I wish him and the Government every success in that endeavour.
Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and for returning to the Chamber within 24 hours of his comments about Russian sanctions yesterday. I read an interesting article on financial sanctions that highlighted the alleged loopholes that are enabling sales and transfers of funds through estate agents, property management and so on. Can the Minister outline whether the Department’s approach will also deal with those UK citizens who may be enabling Russian assets to be diverted and therefore the circumvention of sanctions, which are right and proper?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are significant civil and criminal penalties for the evasion of sanctions. If he or any other Member of the House has any evidence of that, I hope that they would share that with us and the relevant authorities, and we are looking at a single reporting point for people to do that. He can be assured that we look at every way in which people are trying to circumvent the sanctions regimes. We cannot have London, the UK or our British family being a place for those who enable this type of activity. We are resolute and committed to cracking down on it.
Sanctions
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 504), dated 22 April 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.
This instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid before Parliament on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in the regulations, which subject to the affirmative procedure, entered into force on 24 April. Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international norms and rules, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming into power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners, and that includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support for Russia.
Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. It is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships, almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet. The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid and our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not be encouraged by what the Minister and Government are doing in bringing in the sanctions. The one thing that always concerns everybody—the Minister knows this—is the £22.7 billion of frozen Russian assets. We all wish to know whether the Government can pursue those assets with a vengeance and an evangelical zest. That would be a better zest than any other. If we put a squeeze on the frozen Russian assets, we can use them for the benefit of Ukraine, and strengthen everyone who supports Ukraine.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his steadfast support for Ukraine, and for raising this important issue. As I said, we have already ensured that important resources get to Ukraine. Thanks to the speedy passage of measures through this House, and support from all parts of the House, we made sure that happened, and it is making a tangible difference. Two thirds of the ERA loan scheme funding that I mentioned has been disbursed and is immediately supporting Ukraine in obtaining vital military equipment. He rightly asks about frozen Russian sovereign assets more widely. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are working apace with international partners to look at all lawful means of ensuring that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will of course come back to the House in due course to update Members.
Gaza: UK Assessment
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I do not wish to seem evasive, but when these questions are being determined in the court this week, I do not want to get ahead of those submissions and those discussions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some thanks should be given to the Minister for his temperament, his well-chosen words and his reaction to all the questions. He has shown incredible patience, and we all admire him for that. Undoubtedly, there are innocent people who are suffering and have been suffering since Hamas’s genocidal attacks on 7 October. The suffering of Israeli and Palestinian children means that we must find a way forward to secure peace, so how does the Minister believe we can further push for the aim of peace and make the welfare of the children in this region—the innocents—a priority?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman is unfailing in his courtesy, and I am grateful for it again this afternoon. He asks the vital, central question: how can we return to a diplomatic process that provides for security and stability in the region? It must be in accordance with the Arab reconstruction plan, with no place for Hamas in the future, an immediate release of hostages, an immediate return of aid and a return to a diplomatic process that can provide for security and stability for two states side by side.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West
As the Prime Minister set out, the UK will continue to play a leading humanitarian role, including in Gaza, where children must be allowed to return to school in safety. Through our global funding, the UK enables thousands of children to gain access to essential education services, supporting recovery from the trauma of war and building skills and hope for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past, the Minister has spoken very positively about education. What assessment has been made of the potential progress that could be made in reducing youth radicalisation by allocating aid to education programmes, as we have witnessed over the years a number of young people being brainwashed online by extremist groups?
India-Pakistan: Escalation
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I recognise the concerns that will be felt in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as they are felt in Lincoln and elsewhere. I can assure him and the whole House that we will use our full diplomatic weight to try to ensure de-escalation in the region.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Like other Members, all my heart is with the innocent lives that have been lost, and my condolences go to all those who grieve today. It is a salient reminder of what the pastor told us at my Baptist church in Newtownards a few weeks ago: there are 67 wars in the world, so this really is a world at war. With news reports this morning that up to five Indian air force planes may have been shot down, the escalation of this situation is clear and incredibly worrying. Does the Minister believe that we can successfully intervene and negotiate peace, and what assessment of nuclear capacity has been carried out to ensure global security?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman asks important questions. The UK’s goal is de-escalation to try to ensure that we return to regional stability. The other issues between India and Pakistan—which have long been discussed in this House—are important questions to which we can return, but today the focus must be on de-escalation.
Middle East Update
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I have heard the force of the contributions. I say gently to my hon. Friend that unlike my predecessors, I have taken action in response to this crisis, as have the Foreign Secretary and others. However, in the face of the scenes coming out of Gaza, it is clear that no one can be claiming victory at the moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for his carefully chosen words; it is never easy to respond to all these questions. As he has stated, peace talks must be a priority for the region, and it is absolutely essential that food and aid can reach children. Has the Minister been able to talk with our allies in Israel about allowing independent third parties immediate access to Gaza to distribute needed supplies, while also ensuring—very importantly—that Israel’s safety is not compromised in any way?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of independence and impartiality, which are exactly the principles that should be guiding the humanitarian operation in Gaza. He is absolutely right that Hamas must not be diverting aid for their own financial gain or using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. The best way to ensure that is to open up Gaza and allow the aid agencies in to operate effectively.
Prisoners of Conscience
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered prisoners of conscience.
Many Members would like to have been here today but unfortunately were unable to be because of other commitments. We know what those commitments are, given what is happening today across this great nation. Today we gather in this esteemed House not simply to address issues of the moment, but to reflect on the principles that define our humanity and on our collective moral obligations. It is an honour to have been involved in many such debates over the past 12 years. This topic —prisoners of conscience—is close to my heart and the hearts of many Members, some of whom are here, while others have unfortunately been unable to attend.
We speak not for ourselves but for the voiceless. I take seriously the tenets of my faith, as others do theirs. A verse that I often recall in times like this is Proverbs 31:8-9:
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
I know that those ideals are held by many Members, regardless of their religious persuasion. This issue calls on us to uphold our shared values and to support and assist those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Prisoners of conscience, who live in a state of despair due to their faith or belief, are not criminals. They are doctors, teachers, artists, writers, pastors and journalists, and they are all people of faith. Their so-called crime is to think freely, to believe openly, to speak honestly. Prisoners of conscience are individuals who are in prison not for any crime but for their beliefs, their expression of thought or their unwavering commitment to their values. They are a testament to the human spirit’s resilience against tyranny. It is important for us to remember that they are members of our global family—our brothers and sisters—and they are deserving of our advocacy and support.
Let us turn our attention to articles 18 and 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. That pivotal document laid the foundations for our understanding of human rights worldwide. Article 18 states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Those words show clearly what article 18 means: freedom for people to express themselves in any way they wish in relation to their religious beliefs.
I welcome the Minister to her place. She always speaks well on these matters, and we very much look forward to her response. I do not think that she will be found wanting in relation to what we ask of her today. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and others who will contribute.
The rights of teaching, practice, worship and observance are not optional or cultural; they are universal. Yet in 2025, we stand here amid a global crisis of conscience. Thousands sit in cells, unjustly detained, tortured and silenced, merely for professing their faith or upholding their convictions. That is not hypothetical; it is happening all day, every day, for many people. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, as of 2024 at least 72 Christians are either imprisoned or missing in four of the world’s five communist countries: 52 are currently imprisoned in China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, while the other 20 are missing. In North Korea alone, an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 individuals, many of whom are Christian, are detained in prisons.
Article 18 enshrines the fundamental right of individuals to hold their beliefs—whether spiritual, political or philosophical—and to express those beliefs freely and openly.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such compassion and conviction, is making a powerful case. One of the worst examples is the detention of Armenian prisoners of war by Azerbaijan. They have not broken any criminal code, as he says; they are public servants held for political purposes, with no clear legal redress or access, or even clear grounds as to why they are being held. Does he agree that international law should dictate here, not domestic politics, with Governments marking their own homework? I praise my constituent Annette Moskofian, who represents Armenians in the UK. The Minister can be assured that I will write to her with some of Annette’s demands after the debate.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right to mention the Armenians. If we go back even further, we remember what happened in the Armenian genocide. She outlines the case of those prisoners of conscience and prisoners of conflict in Armenia. I know that the Minister has taken note of that and will come back to the hon. Lady, who I thank for her intervention.
As we all know, thousands find themselves in prisons across the globe, not because they have violated laws but because they have dared to articulate beliefs that challenge powerful interests or unpopular narratives. They are individuals who stand firm in their convictions at great personal cost. I admire any person who takes a stand on something that they fundamentally and strongly believe in. It is unacceptable that in the 21st century, we continue to witness the persecution of such individuals. From China to Iran, and Russia to Nigeria, those who seek simply to express their beliefs and exercise their rights have faced unjust attention and oppressive action.
These are not isolated incidents. Unfortunately, they reflect systematic state hostility towards religion and belief, particularly under communist regimes. As Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned in 1983:
“Hatred of God is the principal driving force”
behind communist policy. Militant atheism is not incidental; it is essential to communist control.
Let me be clear: such persecution is not limited to Christians. Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, Baha’is, Falun Gong practitioners, Hindus, Jews and many others face repression across the globe. Freedom of religion or belief is a human right, not a privilege of one faith or nation. It is every individual’s right. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I am honoured to discuss this topic. To help those individuals, I believe that we must make a stand against that injustice, which is why I asked for this debate. We must remind those in power that voices of dissent, and freedom of thought, consciousness and religion, represent not merely an individual right but a foundation of democratic society, and that their offences are not going unnoticed. Today, we bring that to the attention of all the places across the world where this is happening.
Let us affirm our commitment to liberty by remembering the ongoing struggles faced by prisoners of conscience around the world. May we encourage our constituents and communities—mine encourage me every day—to keep those prisoners in their thoughts and prayers, while working together, through advocacy and informed action, to champion the values enshrined in article 18, and to promote the many benefits these freedoms bring to societies that uphold them.
Alongside article 18, we must consider article 19, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Opinion and expression are the bedrock of any vibrant society that wishes to do well and take people with it, in unison. They enable societies to grow and thrive. When we suppress dissent, we undermine progress. There are thousands of prisoners. How can we respond to those innumerable violations of human rights? How can we begin to make a difference? I often think of the analogy of the wee boy on the beach with the starfish. The adult says, “You can’t save them all.” The wee boy says, “But I can save this one.”
We have the power to advocate loudly and clearly not just for the release of prisoners of conscience, but for the root causes of this duress to be confronted and dismantled through sustained diplomatic pressure, international co-operation, and the strengthening of legal and institutional protections for freedom of religion or belief. It is our responsibility to challenge the environments, be they legal, political or ideological, that allow such injustices to persist and to ensure that no individual is ever imprisoned for living according to their conscience.
I call on the Government to prioritise the issue of freedom of religion or belief violations in diplomatic dialogues—I know our Minister does that, and I believe our Government do, but for the purposes of this debate, we seek that reassurance—particularly with states known for systematic abuse. I can think of many examples, including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. We must sanction the individuals responsible for religious persecution, and we must fund and support civil society groups working to secure prisoner releases.
Let us stand united in our unwavering commitment to uphold the principles enshrined in the freedom to change religion or belief, if that is a choice. Together, let us be that voice for the voiceless and that hope for the hopeless. They will probably never see this debate, but they need to be reassured that we are speaking for them in the way that we should.
I would like to mention some of the thousands of prisoners of conscience who are currently held in this awful state. Let the record show we have not forgotten them. I just want to name them; I will not go into all the details, but it is important that we have them on record. They include Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy activist and media tycoon in Hong Kong, imprisoned for his advocacy of freedom of the press, and a British citizen—we have not forgotten about him; Sahar Mahdavi, an Iranian woman detained for participating in peaceful protests advocating for women’s rights—my Ulster Scots accent will destroy these names; Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a Nigerian gospel musician sentenced to death for allegedly blasphemous lyrics in a song shared on WhatsApp; Renagul Gheni, a Uyghur woman detained in China for practising her faith; Mojdeh Falahi, an Iranian Christian convert imprisoned for her religious beliefs; Cao Thi Cuc, a Vietnamese Christian leader arrested for her religious activities; Y Pum Bya, a Montagnard Christian from Vietnam detained for his faith; Mahvash Sabet, a member of the Baha’i community in Iran, imprisoned for her religious beliefs; Nguyen Bac Truyen, a Vietnamese human rights lawyer and religious freedom advocate imprisoned for his activism; Maira Shahbaz, a Pakistani Christian teenager abducted and forced into a marriage and conversion, now seeking asylum; Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian humanist sentenced to 24 years in prison for blasphemy—his faith and his right to hold his views is as important as all the rest; Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, a Yemeni Christian convert imprisoned for his faith; Naser Navard Goltapeh, an Iranian Christian convert sentenced to 10 years in prison for “acting against national security”; and Leah Sharibu, a Nigerian schoolgirl abducted by Boko Haram and held captive for refusing to renounce her Christian faith.
Most recently, I have looked at the case of the continued imprisonment of Chinese dissident Dr Wang Bingzhang, founder of China Spring magazine, a leader of the overseas China pro-democracy movement and a permanent resident of the United States. Dr Wang Bingzhang was kidnapped while travelling to Vietnam in 2002, taken to the People’s Republic of China and sentenced to life imprisonment for his activism after a trial that lasted half a day and was closed to the public, where he was denied the right to due process and a fair trial. He has been held in solitary confinement throughout his 23 years in prison, and his physical and mental health have seriously declined.
The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention declared that
“the detention of Wang Bingzhang is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.
Congressional resolution 326 in the 108th United States Congress of 2003-04 resolved that Dr Wang Bingzhang
“is being arbitrarily detained in the People’s Republic of China in violation of international law”.
It is quite clear that he should be released, and he has been in prison for 23 years. The international case is clear, and we should co-ordinate with the Government of the United States in efforts to seek the release of Dr Wang Bingzhang and his safe, immediate and unconditional return to the United States from the People’s Republic of China. Could he be one of the starfish saved? While acknowledging that we cannot save them all, we can save some.
We must keep hope alive, and I hope that this debate will keep that hope alive for all those people. As Luke 4:18 reminds us:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…to proclaim liberty to the captives and…to set at liberty those who are oppressed”.
Let us proclaim that liberty and not forget the daily plight of prisoners of conscience, alongside faith groups, international allies, non-governmental organisations and parliamentarians worldwide, because this is not just the UK’s fight—this is the world’s fight; it is humanity’s fight for every one of those people.
The House is aware that my private Member’s Bill, the Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill, is scheduled for Second Reading. I have introduced this Bill because I believe we can do more. Today, as I think of prisoners of conscience, I also think of the persecuted Church of Christ and those who are persecuted simply because of their faith across the world. We cannot save them all, but we can do more to save some. I look to the Government to stand up, stand alongside them and send a message that the treatment of the human rights of those who are a minority will impact on trade deals, our Government aid programmes and all aspects of international involvement.
This is about one thing alone: freedom—freedom to express ourselves, in the way that we have the right to in this country. It matters to a prisoner of conscience; it matters to the families; it matters to the politicians; and it matters to this House. I hope the Minister and the Government will take the opportunity today to show that it also matters to them.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in this debate on prisoners of conscience and the importance of faith and freedom of religion or belief. The persecution of religious minorities and human rights are married; if people are being hurt by persecution over religion, their human rights are being hurt, and vice versa. All Members are right to say that. Today this House has been a voice for the voiceless and offered hope for those with no hope.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), referred to never being silent when we see injustice, and he is right. We will not be silent in this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said that today will not be a counsel of despair. He and I, and many others in this Chamber, share a religious belief. He referred to prayer—pray every day; pray earnestly; pray fervently; pray often. He is right to say that, because that is what we should be doing.
I remind the House of the story of William Wilberforce, who often spoke in this House against slavery. There may be but a few of us here today, but remember: it only takes a few to make a change. William Wilberforce never saw the complete abolition of slavery in his time, but his actions made a difference. I thank all those who made a difference today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered prisoners of conscience.
Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones
Jim Shannon Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. You have been a good friend of mine for many years; it is nice to see you in your place and doing well.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on leading this debate. I know that others who participate will support what he has said, and they may also give some examples of areas on which we need to focus. There is no doubt that humanitarian workers face unprecedented dangers merely by doing their jobs. We are all greatly in awe of anyone who does those jobs, because of the courage, bravery, dedication and commitment that they show, so I say a big thank you to them. Humanitarian workers doing aid jobs should always be protected. Unfortunately, we have seen too many examples across the world where they have not been offered protection by those who are in a position to do so. So I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said and the importance of giving them the safety and support that they need.
Aid workers are pivotal in providing aid and medical assistance, and they operate in high-tension environments to protect those who are suffering as a result of war. Aid workers really are the people who rush in at the last minute to give innocent people protection and safety, and the hon. Member was right to underline that. It is imperative that we do all we can to support aid workers in doing their jobs, so it is important that those of us who can be in the Chamber are here to discuss giving aid workers the support that they need across the world.
Stats are always important, because they give us an idea of what is happening across the world. The UN data is clear. It says that 2023 and 2024 were among the deadliest years for aid workers. In 2024 alone, some 280 humanitarian workers were killed. Increasingly, aid workers are being specifically targeted. It is not a case of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Aid workers are in these places doing their jobs at the right time, but they find themselves being targeted by those who, in many cases, should be there to protect them, and who sometimes just want to destroy the work that they are doing, because they know the impact that it has.
Better protection mechanisms are imperative to preserve the safety of aid workers and to ensure that they are able to do their jobs to the best of their ability. Today in this House, I commend aid workers for what they do and I wish only that others could recognise it in the same way. Not only do aid workers risk their lives every day, but they are a point of contact for those in desperate need. We must recognise the good work they do and protect them, and make sure that that happens.
I will give some recent examples. As the hon. Member for Cheadle referred to, we have seen in Sudan that aid has been obstructed by the Sudanese armed forces. Sudan is one of those countries where the depravity, violence, cruelty and evil of man against man, woman and children are incredibly hard to understand.
The United Nations has reported that 22 aid workers have been killed in Sudan since the conflict there began in April 2023, not to mention the depravity that the killers have shown to female aid workers, who have reported sexual exploitation. I am of a generation who always looked out for ladies. We would open the door for ladies, and let them through before moving through ourselves. We would always carry their bags home. People may say that those are silly things, wee small things, but that was the respect we had for women and ladies when I was growing up. Today, that respect is no longer in the places where it should be. Evil seems to have its way, and I find it incredibly difficult to read some of the stories in the press.
Furthermore, the safety of humanitarian workers in Afghanistan has been extremely compromised since the Taliban took power in 2021. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has identified Afghanistan as one of the most hazardous environments for aid workers globally. Between 2022 and 2024, at least 38 aid workers were killed, predominantly those who carried out polio vaccinations and other medical workers. Some of those involved in education have also been targeted and killed. The restriction on female participation has increased dramatically: women must adhere to a strict dress code and have “male guardianship”. Those are just a couple of examples of the prevalent situation. As an international counterparty, we must do more to protect those who are doing their best to help other people.
The hon. Member for Cheadle was right to mention the aid budget. It is disappointing that the Government have decided to reduce the aid budget; the impact of that will be great. In my constituency, many church groups, through NGOs and the work of their missionary societies, help those who need vaccinations or other treatments, whether for polio or AIDS. The aid budget has done all that good work, but now, unfortunately, there is a question mark over the extent to which it can continue at the same level. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and put on the record my support for what he has said.
The Minister will say that money is tight—he is right, in a way—and I understand that, but something could be done. I suggest that one thing that might fill some of the gap—not all of it, financially, but some of it—is working with church groups across the United Kingdom. They are already out there in Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria, for example, and it is possible to work alongside them. If the Minister has any thoughts and ideas on that, I would appreciate hearing them. A partnership could be arrived at so that such groups could do some of the work that cannot be done with the reduced budget that the Minister now has.
To conclude, we must work alongside our counterparts in the UN to ensure that humanitarian workers are protected. In 2024, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, alongside other countries, formed the ministerial group for the protection of humanitarian personnel. What can be done? The group recommended two practical but important things. It pushed for enhanced digital tracking and safety systems, and for improved local partnerships. Humanitarian workers are always in dangerous situations, given the nature of their work so those partnerships with those on the ground are important. When things go wrong, lessons need to be learned.
I very much look to the Minister for his commitment and response. I know he will never be found wanting in answering my questions and I thank him for that. We must support this initiative and ensure the safety of those who work so hard. Again, well done to the hon. Member for Cheadle. I also look forward to the contributions of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), on how we can do this better together.