Progression of Bills through Parliament

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

Yes, I agree. I will come on to talk about future consideration of the legislation.

The arguments against the process—that the consideration was somehow flawed—were widely debated before Third Reading, and the Commons reached a conclusion on that. All MPs had to make a judgment, independent of the Whips, on whether they wanted to pass the legislation.

Sophie and Nathaniel were in the Commons Gallery on the day of Third Reading. They, like people across the country, thought a clear decision had been made: that assisted dying reform would become law, with significant safeguards, subject to some further iteration in the Lords, if required, including an extended implementation period of up to five years to allow any other considerations to be worked through. It was the approach of the House of Lords, specifically a small number of peers, that outraged Nathaniel, Sophie and the other petitioners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It may only have been a small number of peers who tabled amendments, but many others wished to put their names to them. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the will of the House of Lords? I think 170 peers had real concerns about the legislation. The role of the House of Lords is to ensure that those concerns are looked at, and it is fully entitled to do so. On this occasion, it was not able to improve the legislation in the timescale provided. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?

[Lewis Atkinson]

It is always a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman; he is much more experienced in this place than I am. However, over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no Divisions. If the will of the peers was so overwhelmingly against the Bill, the Lords could have divided on Second Reading if the House had wished; it chose not to.

The opponents of the Bill in the Lords went out of their way, it is suggested, to avoid Divisions. Some amendments may have passed, but a great number of others would probably have been defeated. With more than 1,200 amendments tabled, and 1% of peers tabling 60% of them, that small number of peers took up more than a third of the total speaking time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I will finish my point. Fundamentally, the question is whether we can achieve social change in this country through parliamentary means, or not.

I will just go back to how Sophie, the key petitioner, felt. She summed it up in the following way:

“I’m living with incurable cancer and I know how precious time becomes when you’re facing the end of life. Watching Parliament waste that time because of the actions of a tiny number of unelected politicians is heartbreaking”.

It is not that the House of Lords was improving the Bill. It may have been in some cases, but the fact that the House of Lords, in 16 days, did not divide once and decide on one amendment—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I have already given way to the hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I refer hon. Members to the 2019 report produced by the Constitution Committee, “The Legislative Process: The Passage of Bills Through Parliament”, which summarises well the roles each House of Parliament plays. It is instructive when considering this petition. I quote:

“The House of Commons usually addresses the policy and politics of bills, while the House of Lords tends to focus more of its scrutiny on the details and technicalities. This characterisation is not universal, but the complementarity of the broad approach of the two Houses is beneficial to the legislative scrutiny process.”

Similarly, “Erskine May” part 2, chapter 11, paragraph 11.4, concerning the rights and functions of the House of Lords, says:

“The House of Lords, as the unelected Chamber, recognises the primacy of the House of Commons. It does, however, retain substantial powers, particularly over legislation (see Part 4). The House uses its powers to legislate and to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation, to hold the Government to account, to investigate matters of public policy”.

My concern is that the petition emphasises the primacy of the Commons—which I wholly agree with—but neglects the function of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation. Fundamentally, I am deeply troubled by the proposition that any Bill that passes this House, irrespective of its subject matter, should become law regardless of its flaws or the risk it may pose to the vulnerable. This is particularly so in the case of the assisted suicide Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment.

The House of Lords is constitutionally entitled to subject proposals to sustained scrutiny, arguably especially on a morally significant subject such as assisted suicide. The assisted suicide Bill was introduced as a private Member’s Bill, but it did not have the rigorous pre-legislative testing that Government Bills benefit from.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No.

That scrutiny cannot simply be a rubber stamp. If it is conceived of as a rubber stamp, that is a false understanding of what scrutiny entails. The Hansard Society has stated clearly during the previous Session that

“The House of Lords has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block the assisted dying bill.”

That myth needs dispelling.

The second myth that needs to be dispelled is the absurd accusation of the blocking or filibustering the assisted dying Bill by just a small handful of Lords. Amendments were tabled or co-signed by more than 90 peers, and some 140 peers with a range of views on the principle of assisted suicide expressed opposition to the Bill in the Lords, in the form of amendments, speaking in debates or Parliamentary questions. Some have pointed out that hundreds of amendments were tabled by a small number of peers, but it is important to note that dozens of other peers would have tabled the same amendments. It is a total fiction to suggest that opposition came from only a few—there were multiple peers involved.

I will tell hon. Members who those prominent peers were. They were lead signatories on these amendments because of their expertise. They included Baroness Grey-Thompson, who tabled amendments relating to disability—who has better knowledge than that lady? Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care professor, tabled amendments on medical issues—again, her knowledge is significant. Lord Carlile KC, tabled amendments related to legal concerns. Had they not put their names to those amendments, countless others would have done so. They led on those amendments, and the fact that others did not add their names does not mean that they would not have done so in turn.

It is also important to understand that, having been sent to the Lords by this House, the Bill was scrutinised by three separate Committees: the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and a Lords Select Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee was scathing about the skeletal nature of the Bill’s provisions, which included handing more than 40 sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to future Ministers to determine what assisted suicide under the Bill would actually look like.

The final myth, on which the petition partially rests, is that Lords scrutiny of a Bill should be rendered null due to public support for this particular proposal. That is an exceptionally flimsy argument and does not stand up to scrutiny. Putting aside the veracity of claims of 70% public support for the Bill, a recent multi-level regression and post-stratification poll found that, across the country, just 8% of the public would support pushing a non-manifesto commitment into law without approval and full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. The same poll found only 7% ranked it among their top three priorities for their MPs to focus on.

We should listen to our constituents. I always listen to my constituents, in Strangford. I suggest that others may need to do the same.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

No.

I understand the desire of those who support the Bill to see it enacted and perhaps even their disappointment and frustration that the Bill fell at the conclusion of the previous Session. However, to consider use of the Parliament Act to force through this specific, uncorrected, flawed version of the Bill would be foolhardy. A law that is bludgeoned on to the statute book is not one in which we could or should have confidence. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to consider this. I have a different opinion from some in this House, but I have a right to express my opinion on behalf of my constituents. I am doing that. The Leader of the House knows that I do it regularly in the House. I respect others and always have done, but I know one thing for certain—in this case, the procedures have been used correctly.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sure that those in Lancashire combined county authority will have heard my hon. Friend’s contribution. The Government are committed to delivering simpler, more reliable and better joined-up journeys for people across England, including in his area, and we have recently published our “Better Connected” strategy. I encourage him to keep up the pressure, and there are Transport questions next week.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his responses to all our questions, which are always chased up. This week, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the situation for Shi’as, Ismailis, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and other religious minority communities in Afghanistan and on what steps the Government are taking to raise freedom of religion or belief in international engagement on Afghanistan?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and we are major aid donors to Afghanistan, with up to £154 million allocated in the last financial year. As the Foreign Secretary said in February,

“The rights of all Afghans must be protected.”

FCDO officials engage with the Taliban Government in Afghanistan and urge them to reverse their oppressive decrees on human rights, but I will make sure the hon. Gentleman gets a response from the relevant Minister to set out all the actions we are taking.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is a wonderful champion for his constituency, and I once again commend him for that. We are giving constituents the investment and powers they need to deliver the change they want to see in their communities, not least through Pride in Place. He makes a strong case for further funding, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears his remarks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to have the Leader of the House back in his place again? I look forward to his contributions, and thank him for all the responses that he coaxes out of the Ministers who respond to me. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on China’s law on the promotion of ethnic unity and progress, which is due to come into force in July, and its implications for freedom of religion or belief, cultural identity, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in China? China continues to punitively and aggressively persecute Christians, Falun Gong, Muslims and others.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. There has been a bit of a theme this morning about my being in my place; I am slightly worried that hon. Members have heard something that I have not—you never know. As ever, he raises a serious matter. The Government stand firm on human rights, including the repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet and the wider erosion of rights and freedoms across China. We continue to monitor developments, and urge China to respect its obligations under international and national laws. We will not hesitate to hold China to account for human rights violations. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

And he is from Northern Ireland.

[Jesse Norman]

And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by.

Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House.

This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf:

“Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.”

This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament.

The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.

Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said,

“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”

No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.

It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.

I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is right to champion the work of Community Rail Network and the dedication of its volunteers. As I said earlier, community groups and volunteers are the golden thread that tie our communities together. I absolutely thank the people he is talking about in Derby, and indeed those in other parts of our country.

[Jim Shannon]

I wish to raise concerns regarding the detention of Roy Silva, a British citizen who has reportedly been held in Sri Lanka after attending a discussion at a local Roman Catholic church where he spoke about his Christian faith. Since the end of January, he has been held in atrocious conditions, mostly in a room with 200 other prisoners and more recently in a room of 25 prisoners. Mr Silva, who lives in Chingford with his family, had travelled to Sri Lanka to attend his sister’s funeral. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what steps have been taken to secure his immediate release and safe return to the UK, and what representations have been made to the Sri Lankan authorities regarding his detention?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such a serious and concerning case. As he knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and I can assure him that we are treating this case with the seriousness that it deserves. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Foreign Secretary that sets out the actions we are taking.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House. I join him in congratulating everyone at Rochdale sixth-form college, including all the students, on their exceptional, fantastic achievement. Our education reforms will ensure that the country’s education system delivers opportunity for all, and we have invested £800 million extra in further education for 16 to 19-year-olds. I shall certainly draw to the Education Secretary’s attention the success in his constituency, and long may it continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mr Naimi, a young Baha’i in Iran, was tortured into giving a false confession that was later broadcast on state media. He has been subjected to severe beatings, interrogation, and mock executions, in which he had a noose placed around his neck. All this happened in an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detention facility. This has serious implications for the wider Baha’i community in Iran. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Iranian authorities regarding Mr Naimi’s case, and to raise concerns about the treatment of Baha’is and the use of false confessions in Iran?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and I thank him for that. We strongly condemn the repression of religious minorities in Iran, notwithstanding the grave uncertainty about what is happening now. This issue will continue, whatever the outcome of the situation there. The case that he raises is concerning. I will make sure that he gets a response from the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office on what it has done, and what its intention is. On a personal note, may I wish the hon. Gentleman happy birthday for yesterday?

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

We are committed to building a strong pipeline of future zero emission bus orders. The publication of the 10-year pipeline is a key milestone in this work and will boost British manufacturing. As a starter, I encourage my hon. Friend to raise his concerns at upcoming Transport questions on 26 March, but I will also raise with Ministers the prospect of updating the House in a statement, should that be necessary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Christian community in Pakistan continued to face grave injustices and targeted violence throughout February 2026. Families were displaced, livelihoods destroyed, and many continue to live in fear for their safety and freedom. These ongoing persecutions underscore the urgent need for both national and international attention to safeguard fundamental human rights and ensure justice for victims. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Government of Pakistan regarding these ongoing injustices? What steps have been taken to raise concerns about freedom of religion or belief in Pakistan?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue in the responsible way that we have become accustomed to. He knows the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. The persecution of Christians in Pakistan is unacceptable. Protecting freedom of religion or belief is central to the UK Government’s human rights engagement in Pakistan, and we are committed to working with communities and supporting programmes that promote greater tolerance and religious freedoms. I will draw his remarks this morning to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and make sure that he gets an update.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I send my best wishes to Joff and congratulate him on the money that he has raised so far. We are investing in MND research across all areas, including causes, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care, but I will assist my hon. Friend in getting the meeting he seeks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the recent visit to the UK by Nigeria’s President Tinubu. There are concerns about the ongoing harassment, persecution and killing of Christians in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians have been killed, abducted or unlawfully detained in Nigeria in the past year alone. Islamic militants operate with impunity in 12 states and enforce Sharia law, leaving Christians as second-class citizens and punishing those who convert from Islam. Leah Sharibu is one of those, in her eighth year of captivity. Could the Leader of the House raise these issues with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and ensure that Leah Sharibu is freed?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all, and so are this Government. It is our firm belief that every Nigerian should be able to practise their faith or belief in safety, free from fear and persecution. I commend the hon. Gentleman’s dedication in consistently raising these matters in this Chamber. I will share his concern with the Foreign Office after this session.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As I said in a previous answer, we have produced the draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. However, it is not the full extent of the Government’s ambitions in this regard, so I will draw the issue that the hon. Lady raises to the attention of the relevant Minister to see whether they can be addressed in the other steps that we are considering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to ask a business question. I want to raise concerns regarding the detention of Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri, the leader of Zion church, who was arrested during co-ordinated raids across several cities in China. Zion church is an unregistered Protestant church that was previously closed after declining to install state-mandated surveillance equipment. His family state that they have had no contact with him since his detention. These developments are part of wider reports of increased pressure on independent Christian communities. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Chinese authorities regarding these detentions and say what steps have been taken to raise concerns about freedom of religion and belief in China?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I know that this case has been raised this week by the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), and there is clearly a strength of feeling around the pastor’s detention. The reports are a worrying indication of the persecution of Christians in China. We engage with China on freedom of religion, and we will continue to do so. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response from the Foreign Secretary on these important matters.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the way that she has today. No one wishes to be faced with this issue, particularly at such a distressing time. The Government will set our their response to the Fuller inquiry in due course, including on the matter of statutory regulation. If my hon. Friend wants a meeting with the relevant Minister, I will seek to help her to arrange that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

During the recess last week, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I wish to take this opportunity to again raise the continuing plight of Yazidi families. More than a decade after the atrocities committed against the Yazidi community in Iraq, when 6,500 people were murdered and 2,500 people remain missing, some 96 mass graves remain unexhumed. Many victims have yet to be recovered, identified or returned to their families for proper burial. The lack of progress in addressing those graves continues to cause profound distress to survivors and relatives seeking closure. We in Northern Ireland understand that, perhaps in a smaller way, because of the disappeared. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what discussions the Government have had with the Iraqi authorities regarding the identification and the dignified return of remains, and what support the United Kingdom is providing to assist in these efforts?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. The Yazidi population suffered immensely, and the repercussions are still being felt today. Supporting the safe return of remains to families is vital. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Foreign Office Minister, but I also remind him that it is Foreign Office questions next week.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

What my hon. Friend describes is entirely unacceptable. Although I think the Department that deals with Ofcom will have heard her concerns, I will draw her question to its attention because this appears to be a matter of urgency. On the wider issue of children’s safety, the Government are announcing a consultation on social media, and I hope she will raise some of her concerns through that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to raise of a matter of freedom of religion or belief in Turkey. The European Court of Human Rights has recently decided to jointly communicate 20 cases concerning the expulsion of foreign Christian missionaries and religious workers from Turkey. The cases raise significant questions about due process and the protection of freedom of religion or belief under the European convention on human rights. Will the Leader of the House—as he always does, and I thank him for it—ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what discussions the Government have had with their counterparts in Turkey and the Council of Europe about the protection of religious minorities, and what steps have been taken to uphold freedom of religion or belief across Council of Europe member states?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The Government maintain a regular dialogue with Turkey, which is a key NATO ally and strategic partner. The UK calls on Turkey, as a founding member of the Council of Europe, to uphold the rights of all religious groups as enshrined in the Turkish constitution. I will draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and he may wish to raise these matters directly in Foreign Office questions shortly after we return from the recess.