Middle East

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am focused on Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon, I am focused on the UK’s solemn obligation to stop that happening, and I am focused on the diplomacy that is required to bring that about.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I have often spoken in this Chamber about the Iranian regime and the horrific human rights abuses that take place under the IRGC. I have nothing but admiration for the steps taken to destroy Iranian nuclear armaments by our American and Israeli allies—steps that we must support. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the US and Israel as they do what needs to be done? We must send a message to Iran that retaliation in any form will not be acceptable, and that it would face the might of the best armed forces in the world—the British armed forces.

Political Prisoners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for setting the scene so well. I have spoken about the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai on many other occasions in Westminster Hall and asked questions about it in the Chamber. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, because I want to mention the human rights that have been denied to him.

Democracy has been ignored. The hard hand of China and the Hong Kong authorities has come down strongly on democrats, of which Jimmy Lai is one, whose only crime was to speak up for democracy, liberty and freedom. It seems to me that those democrats did that without violence, but with a verbal strength, and I commend them for it. Hong Kong was once a bastion of western principles. I have supported many debates on it and sponsored pro-Hong Kong democracy events in this House to highlight Jimmy Lai and others.

The Chinese Communist party has denied Jimmy Lai his right to worship his God with freedom. He is a practising Roman Catholic. He is not able to have the mass he wants or the freedom of religious worship that he had before he was put in prison—for some 1,630 days, let us remember. His health has deteriorated and he is in a worsened condition.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. I say this circumspectly and with great respect to the Minister and the Government: there was a time when a British passport meant more than it perhaps means today. There was a gunboat diplomacy in that. If a UK citizen was under threat, they could expect the full weight of British authority to be used on their behalf. That does not happen today. But what we do, or try to do—the Minister and the Government do this all the time—is exercise the diplomacy that we need to.

Jimmy Lai’s staunch criticism of the Chinese Government led to his arrest in 2020. His story is a rallying point for those defending democratic values and human rights in the face of increasing authoritarianism. His trial began in December 2023, with his son Sebastien fighting for his release. Jimmy Lai testified for 52 days. Closing arguments were scheduled for August 2025. The 77-year-old has lived in Hong Kong since he was 12 years old. Having stowed away on a fishing boat from China and worked as a child labourer in a garment factory, he built up a fashion empire. He has been an advocate for democracy since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China. He set up a magazine in Hong Kong.

Jimmy Lai has never held a Chinese or Hong Kong passport. Hong Kong authorities deem him to be a Chinese citizen because he was born in mainland China, even though he is as British as what you are, Mr Western, and what I am. Mr Lai has homes all over the world. It is only right that we advocate for his release.

I am reminded of Romans 12:18:

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

That is a call not only to personal conduct, but to public policy. It urges us to pursue peace, and I believe that we should do that in every way we can—not passively, but intentionally, as far as it depends on us.

My request today is to free Jimmy Lai. I hope the Chinese Government are listening—they are probably not listening to Jim Shannon, the MP for Strangford. Perhaps they are not listening to any of us. I am one of those people who could not go to China even if I wanted to. I have no wish to go to China, by the way, Mr Western. You will never see me on a plane going that way, and never see me on the beaches, wherever they have beaches in China. I am interested in human rights and freedom of religious belief. Jimmy Lai should be freed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will try to keep my remarks brief in order to be able to hand back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). I will make some progress through the cases that have been raised, as well as the general policy, and then I will be happy to take interventions.

The Government remain gravely concerned by the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen, as so many Members have pointed out. His case remains a top priority. We continue to call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law, and we call on the Hong Kong authorities to end the prosecution of all individuals charged under it and immediately release Mr Lai.

As many Members know well from their constituencies —just as I know from Lincoln—the UK has deep and long-standing ties with Hong Kong, but the continued erosion of rights and freedoms threatens Hong Kong’s way of life. China’s imposition of the national security law has seen opposition voices stifled and dissent criminalised. Mr Lai is just one of those voices; prominent and outspoken, he has been silenced through a politically motivated prosecution.

The Foreign Secretary has committed to raising Mr Lai’s case with China at every opportunity. We have stood firm on that promise, and it is of the utmost importance to this Government. Ministers have regularly and repeatedly made clear the damage that Mr Lai’s ongoing imprisonment has done to Hong Kong’s reputation and the challenge that it presents to UK-China relationships more broadly.

Hon. Members asked me a number of questions about which Ministers have raised Mr Lai’s case and how. The Prime Minister has done so with President Xi, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) highlighted, and the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Foreign Office Ministers—in particular, the Minister with responsibility for China, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West)—Trade Ministers and Science Ministers have all raised Jimmy Lai’s detention with their Chinese counterparts. We will continue to do so.

Our diplomats have attended Mr Lai’s trial throughout, alongside our partners, to make it known that the world is watching. I was asked about the role of other countries. We welcome the support from many of our partners in raising Mr Lai’s case. Just yesterday, the Foreign Secretary again met Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, who has indeed campaigned tirelessly for his father’s release. The Foreign Secretary updated him on his recent engagements with China and offered his full support, including on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is closely following Mr Lai’s trial.

The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest, precisely so that we can have direct and often difficult conversations in the interests of the British people, including Jimmy Lai. I say in response to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), that the China audit should be published soon.

I turn now to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on consular prisoner policy. As a former official as well as a Minister, I know well the terrible impact that being incarcerated has on not just the individual in question but their family. I know from my own personal experience how different every case is and how difficult it can be to secure progress. I know the importance of commitment, of determination and of finding every possible route to secure release. I can assure hon. Members that the health and welfare of detainees is at the heart of our consular work. We will support families wherever we can.

I recognise the complexity of Mr Lai’s case and some of the others that have been referenced. In such cases, we use a taskforce approach, drawing in expertise from specialist teams, geographic experts and our embassies around the world to determine our strategy. Teams examine the circumstances of each case individually and develop tailored approaches based on careful judgments of what is likely to be most effective. We are examining options to strengthen our approach, with the appointment of a special envoy to work with families on the most complex detention cases, and we will announce further details in due course. We are also committed to introducing a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations, and consultations are ongoing.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made an important point about the accountability of Ministers. I am the Minister with responsibility for consular affairs. The appointment of an envoy will complement our efforts; it will in no way displace my responsibility to hon. Members and to this House, or, indeed, the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary and others to account for their actions on all these cases.

I will turn to some of the other cases that have been raised, including tirelessly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). We continue to express concerns about Mr Johal’s prolonged detention to the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, emphasising the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of his case in India’s independent legal system. We continue to provide consular support to Mr Johal and his family. The Foreign Secretary met Mr Johal’s brother on 8 May and raised Mr Johal’s case with his Indian counterpart on several occasions, including most recently on 7 June. The Prime Minister raised Mr Johal’s case with Prime Minister Modi on 18 November and with the Indian Minister of External Affairs on 4 March.

As several hon. Members mentioned, many Members are focused on Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt and on his mother, Laila. The Government are committed to securing Alaa’s urgent release and we continue to engage at the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Prime Minister raised the case with President Sisi on 22 May and the Foreign Secretary with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 1 June. I am, of course, concerned by the hospitalisation of Laila, Alaa’s mother. I have met her and the family on a number of occasions, and I met her with Prime Minister on 14 February. I share her desire for an urgent resolution. I have impressed the urgency of the situation on the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian ambassador on repeated occasions. I assure the House that the case remains a top priority for me personally.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster of the priority that the Government place on the fate of her constituent, Mr Lai.

[Jim Shannon]

With the utmost respect to the Minister, I made the case for Jimmy Lai being denied his right to religious worship. He is a practising Roman Catholic, but cannot have his mass or worship his God in the way he wants to. With that in mind, and as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I ask the Minister what has been done to ensure that Jimmy Lai has the freedom of religious belief that he should expect.

[Mr Falconer]

I welcome and commend the hon. Member’s efforts on freedom of religious belief, not just in Hong Kong but across the world. We have raised the circumstances of Mr Lai’s detention and will continue to do so. The UK will not stop pressing for consular access in that case, and indeed in all other cases where consular access is denied, and we will not stop calling for Mr Lai’s immediate release.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

At this Dispatch Box, I speak as Foreign Secretary, not as a lapsed member of the Bar who qualified in 1995.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The role of the IRGC in life in Iran over the years has been human rights abuses, religious freedom abuses and gender abuses, with acts of global extremism and terrorism often having their roots and support in Iran. The war in Israel is a prime example of that. Anyone who pretends that Iran, with its nuclear potential, is in any way an innocent bystander is being deliberately dishonest. Will the Foreign Secretary commit again to working with allies, such as the US, to minimise bloodshed and ensure that Israel is able to remain safe and free from all attacks?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman is right to bring to mind the human rights record in Iran. I remind the House that just three years ago, Iran arrested 20,000 people, executed many, and many died, all because a young woman—Mahsa Amini—did not cover herself up. She died in prison. That is the regime we are talking about.

Air India Plane Crash

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I spoke to some of my hon. Friend’s constituents earlier in the day, and they were full of gratitude for his work on behalf of his city and constituency over the weekend. I also pay tribute to that. As I said earlier, I am happy to talk to any Member about the particular circumstances of their constituents, and see what can be done to help them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, his Department and all his civil servants for their sterling efforts on behalf of the families. At this time we all think about how we can help; we help through our Minister, our Government, and our officials, so I thank them.

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party and myself, may I convey my thoughts and prayers for all those families who lost loved ones in the Air India crash—for the pain, the void they have and the ache in their hearts? Our hearts ache for them. The air accident is a tragedy, and the loss of life is incredibly difficult to understand. All our focus is with families within this United Kingdom, and globally, who mourn today. But although they mourn today, there will come a day when they want to understand how this could have happened. Will the Minister confirm how we can be assured that current global airline safety measures are adequate and robust? What role does this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have in the safety of air travel?

[Mr Falconer]

The UK has a proud record of playing its full part in global aviation standards. As I said, our Air Accidents Investigation Branch will be assisting the investigation into this incident fully, and taking full note of its findings.

Gibraltar

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The clarity is that there will no longer be any checks. If they fly into Spain, they are flying into the Schengen area. If they fly into Málaga, they are free to drive to Gibraltar without checks—they would already have had those checks. The same applies in the other direction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I must ask a question given the similarities between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. The sovereignty issues faced by Northern Ireland in terms of European overreach on borders mean that Northern Irish people will feel anxiety about this agreement. Will the Secretary of State outline what consideration has been given to the views of Gibraltarians, and what consultation was held regarding the policy of a foreign nation on their soil?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that our position of “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar” gave those guarantees, and no meetings were held—certainly not under this Government or, I am quite sure, under the previous Government either—without the Chief Minister in the room, so that they were happy. We would not have had a deal were they not happy; there would not have been a deal were the Chief Minister not able to stand up and say, “I am happy with this deal.” That was the guarantee we gave. Of course we reflected on the issues that arose in relation to Northern Ireland.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to try to ensure that food and medicine reach children and all those in need in Gaza. I will return to this House when I have further announcements.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is much respected in this House. He has been at pains to emphasise that these sanctions are being placed on the people, not the Government, yet already media headlines out there are creating the image that Israel is being sanctioned. Will he underline and state the unwavering support that Israel has from him and this Government in its battle for survival against continued Hamas terrorism so that there can be no doubt that this nation remains standing with Israel?

[Mr Falconer]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his courtesy in this House. I can reaffirm that this Government support the existence of the state of Israel, and we will continue to stand on its defence when required.

USAID Funding Pause

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for leading the debate. He and I have talked often about his previous job before he came here. I put on the record my thanks to him for what he did. His heart is in this debate, as was clear in his comments. This is a huge issue: since Trump signed the initial executive order in January, there has been a moral obligation on countries like ours to do our best to pick up what may be lost in terms of humanitarian safety, so it is great to be here to discuss that impact.

The United States is the world’s largest aid donor, providing 20% of all aid. In addition, in 2023 it was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and humanitarian aid. In March 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that 82% of all USAID programmes would be ended. I will try to be respectful, but I have to say that if the richest country in the world cuts back on aid to that extent, it reflects badly on that country; I think there is something wrong there.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I are Christians, and we tithe our money so 10% of our income goes to charities and Christian work. We are not better than anybody else— I make that quite clear—but we do that because we feel we are morally supposed to. The reflection on the USAID programme is absolutely unbelievable and incomprehensible for a country with so much money.

I was telling my hon. Friend about a conversation between two American ladies—I do not know who they were—that I overheard in my hotel in Waterloo this morning. I heard one say to the other, “Oh, by the way, I had to get my leg done and it cost $100,000.” I nearly spilt my coffee on the floor—$100,000 and there was not another word about it. The US as a country has an obligation to others across the world, and it needs to play its part. I say that with respect and in all honesty.

The decisions that began in January have ultimately raised concerns about the continuity of global health and developmental support work. As my party’s health spokesman, my interest is piqued by the potential for humanitarian and health aid to be ultimately affected as a result. I understand that the Government have made some exceptions with waivers, but hundreds of thousands of people will undoubtedly be impacted because of those decisions.

According to The Independent, 912,730 women per week are being denied contraception. HIV vaccine trials in South Africa have been halted. Food and shelter programmes in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped early. US withdrawal has led to an increase in influence from outside actors such as China—let us beware China using its money to fill the space and therefore get what it wants. Up to half a million children could be at risk of outbreaks of malaria and cholera, which can be prevented in normal circumstances with aid.

Not only are such decisions impacting people across the globe, but closer to home the staff are ultimately out of employment as well. There is a disregard for the number of jobs that it could impact. The Minister has compassion and interest in this issue, and I do not think any of us will be disappointed in her response to our requests. In any discussions that she and the Government have with the US on this matter, the UK must work with other countries to meet development goals and ensure that those struggling across the globe are not left with nothing.

The UK has a stellar reputation for supporting countries facing poverty. In Northern Ireland we have several charities, non-governmental organisations and churches— I work with them all the time in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards—that are pivotal in supporting people in poverty. Charities such as Challenge Ministries, Mission Africa, Self Help Africa and Children in Crossfire come out of the churches and what they do. Their continued efforts reflect our commitment to supporting the nations who need help, and we must ensure that to some extent we continue to do that in the long term.

[Mr Campbell]

On the NGOs and the other groups helping people at home, the House of Commons Library summary indicates that over a quarter of UK aid has been spend on refugees based in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be better deployed overseas to try to assist the economies of developing countries, because of the concern about massive immigration into the UK? If those economies were helped and assisted, it would do more to reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK and offset the problems that we occasionally see on our streets.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments about what we should do are incredibly wise, because there would be benefits. Sometimes the full appreciation of that is not known.

I was at a Samaritan’s Purse charity event last Friday in my constituency, where I was quite critical of USAID. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, whose missionary work I am aware of, is also working with Samaritan’s Purse. Such people in my constituency and elsewhere fill the gap where the aid falls down. We owe a great debt to those NGOs, church groups, missionary organisations and the likes of Samaritan’s Purse for what they do and how they respond to emergencies, whether they are floods, earthquakes, war or whatever.

To conclude, both Governments have said in the past that more needs to be done to help low-income countries raise their own funds for development and to address climate change, especially in relation to poverty reduction. We should be proud as a nation of what we have done, while also encouraging our counterparts in the US to ensure that we do what we can to support as a collective.

I agree that every pound or dollar spent must not be wasted on political gesturing and must be spent well, but we must not stop spending altogether. That is my fear about USAID, because we have a moral obligation. I know that our US counterparts can work with us to find worthwhile projects, cut the political posturing and make a global difference, which is what we all need to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I think we are all making the important point that since the 2008 global crash, our economy has never really been the same and we have struggled to make progress, whether on wages and living conditions at home or on completely fulfilling our responsibilities abroad. As one says, we are where we are. General reductions in public spending are part of a broader set of pressures facing the international development system.

Support for multilateralism has been wavering for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said, amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Many of our partners feel that the current system no longer responds to their needs. The combined impact of these two factors is significant, and let me briefly expand on them.

First, on the disbanding of USAID, it is inevitable that significant cuts will have lasting implications for how we tackle global development challenges. I cannot say how pleased I am that the International Development Committee will go to the USA to have face-to-face dialogue with friends about how we can save the most important elements of our programmes. Given the knowledge base of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is well known for his work on global health, HIV/AIDS, Gavi, Unitaid and the Global Fund, he will be able to make pertinent arguments with friends there. I would also ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his connections in the faith sector, to impress on all the different faith-based charities the need to continue their important work where they can and to have many people doubling their tithe.

[Jim Shannon]

I have suggested this in the past, because there is a real possibility of doing good things together: those organisations would be keen to work alongside Government through their NGOs, if that was possible. I think I have asked the Minister this before, but I am interested in whether she would by sympathetic to that idea.

[Catherine West]

I will certainly pass that idea back to the Minister with responsibility for development, because we always end up having good ideas in Westminster Hall debates.

The US is a key partner, but this is a matter for them. It is their budget. We have a strong relationship with the US that is founded on shared interests and common approaches. Together with our G7 and G20 allies, we carry strong global influence, and we must never stand back from that. That is why we are committed to working with the US and other countries on our shared priorities. We are in regular touch with US counterparts to share advice as they shape their development plans. As in any diplomatic relationship, we will not always align with the US, and we may want to focus on other things. That is normal. We will engage in a pragmatic way to understand concerns and find a way forward.

Many Members have mentioned the multilateral system. No single country can solve the global development challenges alone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for pointing that out as well as the importance of working with international financial institutions, which she learned through her experience before coming to this place. This is where we have to be much more innovative. We cannot just sit around the table and nod through reports; we have to put some life back into those systems so that we can enable the finance and the technical aid, which the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also mentioned. Through technical assistance and international financial organisations, we are not powerless —we can use them. There is an opportunity to rebuild trust, rebalance power and design a more effective, inclusive, co-operative and future-proof architecture.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, mentioned the 1970s. We must not forget, at a moment like this, what the development sector has done. So many more people lived in abject poverty before, and there is now a growing middle class, and much of that is down to really bright people, employed by NGOs in those countries, who are leading movements and improving the economy. Under 10% of people are now living at the poorest level, which used to be on $1 a day. The development Minister will know the statistic, but it has reduced to 9%. This debate, as well as lots of other evidence, is going into the spending review so that decisions can be made. We know that a preponderance of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is being taken into account.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for setting the scene. She might be small in stature, but she has the biggest heart in the Chamber—well done. The opportunity to urge our Government to continue to do the right thing and act for the innocent people of Ukraine is the reason why we are all here.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The strength of feeling in the room is shown by the raw emotion of the hon. Gentleman and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing we can do today is take the opportunity to come together, across the parties, and recognise the need to continue to support these Ukrainian families?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is much appreciated.

The forced deportation of Ukrainian children without their parents by Russian forces is a grave violation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, I will go as far as to say that these actions constitute a war crime under article 8 of the Rome statute, which explicitly forbids the unlawful deportation or transfer of protected persons. These acts, targeting the most vulnerable, have torn families apart and have eroded the culture and national identity of Ukraine’s future generations.

Article 6 of the Rome statute is also relevant. The systematic and calculated manner of these abductions is evidenced by reports that refer to some 20,000 Ukrainian children. The figures are unknown, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South pointed out. Who knows what they really are? The crimes demand urgent scrutiny to determine whether they meet the threshold for genocide.

These children, torn from their families and homeland, are victims of a deliberate campaign by Russian and Belarusian authorities not only to erase their identity and culture, but to erase their memories of their families. This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral outrage. Forced deportation by Russian authorities during the ongoing conflict has created a stolen generation—a term that is reminiscent of other historical cases, such as that of Australian’s stolen generation, when Government policy saw indigenous children removed from their families and communities to assimilate them into a different cultural identity. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To steal a nation’s children is to steal its future.

The United Kingdom must lead with moral and legal clarity on agreeing a course of action to hold Russia’s feet to the fire over these crimes against humanity. I believe that we must intensify our sanctions on Russian and Belarusian officials, military and other state actors who are complicit in these abductions. We must demand justice through international legal bodies, including the International Criminal Court, to hold perpetrators accountable. The UK must support investigations and advocate for expedited arrest warrants. Justice delayed is justice denied. These children and their grieving families cannot wait.

The scale of the tragedy remains unreported by the mainstream media, but I believe that today’s debate amplifies the voices of Ukrainian families, places pressure on policymakers and signals to Russia that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stands firmly against this greatest act of sheer inhumanity. The forced transfer of children is explicitly defined as genocide under article II of the 1948 genocide convention.

The abduction of Ukrainian children is yet another stain on humanity’s already overburdened conscience. By intensifying sanctions, pursuing justice and acknowledging the genocidal nature of Russia’s actions, the UK can be a leader in demanding the return of these children to their families. We cannot stand idly by while their futures are stolen. I therefore look to the Minister, who I believe is of the same mind. We must act with the urgency and the conviction that this crisis demands and remind Russia that good people will not stand idly by.

Government Travel Advice: Laos

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government safety advice for visiting Laos.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the chance to lead this debate on the Government’s safety advice for visiting Laos and to raise awareness of the dangers of methanol poisoning.

Late last year, the family of Simone White contacted me to alert me to her tragic case and their worries about a lack of awareness among young people of the dangers posed by counterfeit alcohol. As any Members present who have seen the media coverage will know, Simone was travelling with her friend Bethany in Laos, as many young people from the UK and other countries do. They were staying in the town of Vang Vieng, a regular fixture on the backpackers’ trail around south-east Asia, when they drank free shots that they were offered in a hostel. The next day, both felt unwell and initially thought that they had food poisoning, but a few days later, Simone tragically died in hospital, the victim of methanol poisoning.

I have since had the opportunity to meet Simone’s family and have heard what a wonderful young woman she was, with a brilliant life ahead of her. When attending her funeral in January, it was clear from the eulogies delivered the kind of esteem in which she was held by friends and family. What really struck me was the sense of determination that came through from her friends and family that, no matter what, when she set her mind to do something, she would go out there and achieve it, whether that was playing a musical instrument or deciding at 13 that she wanted to become a lawyer, as she subsequently successfully went on to do. The eulogies also told of a keen sportswoman who regularly played football and netball, as well as finishing several half-marathons to raise money for good causes. A testament to her character was the voluntary legal work she took on outside her job, helping victims of domestic abuse. She also became a covid vaccine volunteer.

I pay tribute to the courage of Simone’s family—her mum Sue, her dad Neil, and Tom and Amanda, and their wider families—as well as to her friend Bethany, who was with her in Laos. They have shown courage in fighting for justice for Simone and in trying to raise awareness so that other families do not lose loved ones in the same tragic circumstances. I welcome members of Bethany’s family and others involved in tragic cases involving methanol to the Public Gallery this afternoon—thank you for joining us.

Simone was not the only young person to die at the hostel, with two young Australians, Holly Bowles and Bianca Jones, two young Danish women, Anne-Sofie Orkild Coyman and Freja Vennervald Sorensen, and an American, James Louis Hutson, losing their lives as well. All our hearts go out to their families, who lost loved ones in the most difficult circumstances. As Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in November, this is “every parent’s worst nightmare”.

I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for taking the time to meet Simone’s family earlier this month, and for her replies to my many letters on the subject. I appreciate the support that the Minister’s Department, along with Kent police, have offered to the family during this awful time.

Issues with the addition of methanol to alcohol are not confined to Laos, with reports of over 30 deaths in Turkey earlier this year. Nor is the issue new: just over 10 years ago, Cheznye Emmons was travelling in Indonesia with her boyfriend when she drank gin that had been mixed with methanol. The inquest into her death heard that she suffered sudden blindness and convulsions, and died five days later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. I do not think anyone was not shocked and moved to hear what can happen, especially to young people, who go for one of those adventure holidays where they look forward to the excitement they will have together. Does he agree that although it is ostensibly safe to visit Laos, British citizens need to be aware that excursions out of the safe golden triangle are an absolute no-go? Rules are already in place, but those rules are perhaps not raised enough with British citizens. How does he feel we can effectively get the message across?

[Jim Dickson]

It is indeed the case that not enough awareness is currently out there among citizens of all ages travelling from the UK to places where organised crime regularly doctors drinks. Part of the mission of this debate and our conversations with the Minister and the families is to raise awareness and find ways that the Government can help to do that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I may just finish that point—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one final intervention.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely concur.

[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.