Marriage Week

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important issue to the House. Is he aware of the ComRes poll showing that 21% of people support further increases in the personal allowance, but that 60% support increasing the marriage allowance? Does he feel that the Government should consider making the married couple’s allowance that is provided to couples in their 80s and 90s much more generous?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman and I share views on many issues, not least on how welcome it is that the marriage allowance is once again a transferable allowance. However, that is just a small dent in properly recognising marriage and giving it its true worth and value. That could perhaps be done not least by following the call from many of us, and from the Centre for Social Justice and others, to focus particularly on couples with young children. I would certainly support that.

Adult Stem Cells and Life Sciences

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that. The quality of the data that can be shared is important, and the key ask of the Government is to support the call for a national stem cell transplantation network, which will help in that.

However, Professor Raisman’s pioneering work remains underfunded. He hit the headlines in 2014 when Polish surgeons, in collaboration with scientists in London, enabled Darek Fidyka, a man paralysed from the chest down in a knife attack, to walk again using a frame. Professor Raisman said that the achievement was

“more impressive than man walking on the moon.”

Sir Richard Sykes, chair of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, said:

“To fully develop future treatments that benefit the 3 million paralysed globally will need continued investment for wide scale clinical trials.”

We are trying to get to precisely that clinical basis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on what is an important subject. Given that a third of adults and a fifth of children who receive a stem cell transplant do not survive the first year, does he agree that we need better post-care provision, perhaps by establishing a national care pathway for patients for at least five years after transplant?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do, and I want to look at the long-term outcomes.

My co-chair on the all-party group on stem cell transplantation, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), is present, and our group has been looking at some of the outcomes of research. Last year we joined together with the all-party group on medical research and heard from a number of experts, not least Dr Rob Buckle, director of the UK Regenerative Medicine Platform. He said that the major challenge which remains is translating the basic science into the clinic. He said that we are still at least 10 to 15 years off routine clinical use of stem cells.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Absolutely. I pay tribute to the Anthony Nolan trust, which has been supportive of the all-party group for many years. It has worked hand in hand with the Government on providing more collections, and its registry is world renowned for providing support and saving lives. The trust is making the call, as we are doing here, that we could do much more with high-quality research to support better long-term outcomes for patients.

I would like to highlight the success of the trials acceleration programme, which was established by someone the Minister knows well, Professor Craddock at the University of Birmingham. He is also connected with the Anthony Nolan trust. The early phase trials involve an initiative to speed up the pace of new clinical trials using a hub and spoke model to ensure that trials are conducted efficiently. The hub co-ordinates trial centres at hospitals around the UK and deals with bureaucracy and regulatory issues. The trials acceleration programme has successfully overcome the main barriers to research—namely, inadequate research infrastructure and inefficient data collection. I suggest to the Minister that this programme should be replicated in the form of a national stem cell transplantation trials network.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand that one in eight people in the UK fail to find a matching donor. That number increases dramatically, however, for people in black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should prioritise support for further research into stem cell transplantation and the factors that affect transplant survival rates?

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on many of these issues. Progress has been made on collection rates, particularly among the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, but we need to find better ways to do this. As I said, one in four people are unable to find a match. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is himself a donor, and he can speak for himself on this. I know that others present in the Chamber have family members whose lives have been saved by people donating. I want to send out a message from the debate tonight for people to donate and to be part of the registry, so that they can help to save lives.

Human Rights (Burma)

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, which follows my visit to Burma last month. Since then there have been much more notable visits, not least last week by President Obama and the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who were in the country for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations east Asia summit. President Obama delivered a clear and unequivocal message of concern that Burma’s reform process, which began three years ago with such hope and was welcomed by Members in all parts of the House, has sadly stalled and in some respects gone into reverse. That is why the debate is particularly timely—it means that we can hear from the Government about their concern. I suggest that they will join the chorus of disapproval about the lack of progress on the reforms. The previous week, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered the same message. I know that the Government listen carefully to her, and we need to respond accordingly.

At the same time, Harvard law school has published a report accusing the Burmese army of war crimes and crimes against humanity, following not just a fly-by look but a four-year investigation. I ask the Minister for his response to the suggestion that reforms have stalled and, in some respects, slid backwards. Do the Government agree with Harvard law school’s conclusions that the military in Burma have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity? That backs up other human rights reports that we have brought to the House’s attention over a number of years—it is good to see a number of friends of Burma in the Chamber. What Government action should follow?

I visited Burma just over a month ago courtesy of the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We visited Rangoon and Myitkyina, the capital of war-torn Kachin state in the north of the country. I left with mixed feelings. One has to recognise that significant and welcome changes have occurred in Burma in the past three years. I had the privilege of delivering three public lectures focused on the relationship between parliamentary democracy, human rights and civil society. They were given to three distinct audiences: to the British Council in Rangoon, where I understand the Minister also spoke; to civil society and religious leaders in Kachin state, organised by a remarkable organisation called the Humanity Institute; and to at least 150 people from a range of political, ethnic and religious backgrounds, who in many ways represented the future of Burma—diversity in unity. They showed us the thirst for democracy and human rights. That meeting was organised by young activists from Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, in the restaurant that was previously the office of the father of democracy in Burma, the independence leader General Aung San.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene; I asked his permission beforehand.

When the Nobel peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 2010, many of us thought it was a move towards real democracy. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman said, more recently there has been persecution of Christians to such an extent that Burma is now 23rd on the world watch list in that respect. That indicates how much has happened. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the persecution of Christians who are being brutally abused, attacked and killed and having their churches damaged as a result of their beliefs?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do, and one focus of my visit was to meet a number of Church leaders across Burma who are expressing the same concern. Although for some reason there is not quite the same visible outright discrimination, it is going on and people are not able to build churches. The army may leave, pagodas are put up, and Christian communities are displaced. I will go on to address concerns about religious liberty, not just for the Christian community but for the Muslim community, which is being severely persecuted.

I was accompanied on my visit by Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He is a remarkable young man whom many of us know well. He is a champion of democracy for Burma, and perhaps one symbol of progress was when we learned that his book “Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant” has, without his knowledge, been translated into Burmese and is being sold on street corners in its thousands. That is a good example of unstoppable momentum, and the thirst for freedom and democracy is shown by that distribution. The opportunities that I experienced when I visited would have been inconceivable three years ago.

It is right to welcome the fact that Burma has taken a significant step along the road to reform and democracy, but this House, with the particular responsibilities of this country, must highlight the serious concerns of and challenges facing the people of Burma. According to the Free Burma Rangers, which is a humanitarian organisation working in Burma’s ethnic areas—it is very much in these areas that we see the worst situations—so far this year there have been 168 clashes between the Burmese army and armed ethnic resistance forces. That is at a time when the Government, the army and ethnic nationalities are engaged in ceasefire talks, and the Government promise a peace process. During that process, however, rape, torture and the killing of civilians continue, and a significant military offensive has continued in Shan state since June.

Cyprus

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burrowes]

Did not we get to that point in February in the joint declaration? Despite some people’s cynicism and concern the joint declaration was made, with an agreement on the fundamental principles. There was forward momentum, but since then noises off have suggested otherwise.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, it takes both sides to recognise the need for initial engagement, and a basis on which to move forward. I am disappointed that things have not gone beyond that, because polls seem to have suggested a way forward.

I feel that real change may be brought about through the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. I mentioned the 2,000 people who went missing, and we cannot bypass the hurt of the people affected by that. If people are given some form of closure perhaps their emotions can begin to recover, and the past can be left to rest in the past. Then I believe people will find it easier to talk, co-operate and, as has been said, compromise and make the necessary changes—to be totally committed to finding a way forward. When I think how far we have come in Northern Ireland despite not having closure for many family members, and despite the constant rather ludicrous debate over who the victims really are, I think that real change is every bit as likely in Cyprus as it was for us.

The article headed “Turkish poll sees shift on Cyprus” refers to

“24 per cent saying the Cyprus issue has lasted too long and a solution should be reached ‘no matter what the conditions are’.”

It adds:

“Another 26 per cent argued ‘there is no need to insist for a solution’, the best option is to have two separate states on the island. Eighteen per cent support the formation of a new Cypriot state”

with another 19% in support of a similar notion. Clearly, almost 87% want progress.

There has been some progress in recent months, with the newly elected Turkish President Erdogan making some fairly positive remarks, beneficial to both sides. However, his meeting with Greek Prime Minister Samaras did not go entirely to plan, as relations between the two soured because of their differences on Cyprus. That is to be expected, however; finding a peaceful solution with which to go forward will not be easy, but it is a possibility to be pursued with all eagerness. The Pancyprian Federation of Labour, the Turkish Cypriot Revolutionary Workers Trade Union Federation, Turkish Cypriot teachers and workers unions and the United Cyprus party have called for a

“just and mutually accepted solution”.

As always when there are two opposite opinions, compromises will need to be made if change is to be made possible, and talks should begin as soon as possible.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot comment on the technical figures—no doubt the Minister will say something about them when he sums up the debate—but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The Government clearly have much to do. Indeed, we all have much to do in putting forward our views, but let us hope that those who have an opportunity to enter into a marital relationship will be able to benefit financially as well.

Although 90% of young people aspire to marry, marriage rates are at an all-time low, while cohabitation rates are rising. The reason why that matters can be expressed in many ways, but I shall do so by employing language that the Treasury understands. The cost of family breakdown has risen to some £44 billion per annum, and crucially, according to the Centre for Social Justice, of every £7 spent on family breakdown amongst young families, £1 is spent on divorce, £4 is spent on unmarried dual-registered parents who separate, and £2 is spent on sole registered parents.

In this context it is absolutely imperative that the state does not place any unnecessary obstacles in the way of those who wish to marry, yet that is exactly what we do on many occasions. Since 2000 we have had a tax system that is very much in the minority internationally, as the hon. Member for Peterborough said. Just over a fifth of people in the OECD area live in countries that do not recognise marriage or have some kind of couple allowance. The vast majority of those people live in just two countries: the UK and Mexico. Research by Pearson and Binder published by the public policy charity CARE demonstrates that in this context the tax burden on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage has been consistently much higher in this country than across the OECD on average. In 2012, the latest year for which there are comparable data, the tax burden on a UK one-earner married couple on average wage was 45% greater than the OECD average, up from 42% in 2011. Moreover this burden was a staggering 80.4% of that placed on a single person on the same wage while the comparable OECD figure was just 55%. Figures sometimes blind us to the issues, but these figures illustrate the issue of fairness and balance and show what the Government are trying to achieve through the legislative change before us.

In this context is it any wonder that rather than opting for marriage, couples are opting for other arrangements? Clause 11 will begin to put this right, but this is only a very limited, partially transferable allowance that, far from creating a level playing field, let alone a little nudge to opt for marriage, will instead only erode the incentive not to marry. Clause 11 is thus a hugely important first step; it is a foundation upon which we must build.

On 10 April 2010, when announcing the detail of the Conservative transferable allowance policy, which was then worth 11.6% of the personal allowance, the Prime Minister was clearly bothered that the package was not more generous. He indicated his wish to see more and, speaking on “Sky News”, he blamed the current fiscal constraints and said:

“Of course I want to go further and I am sure that over a Parliament we would be able to go further but this is a good first step.”

I believe this is a good first step. I am on record in my constituency as asking for this. I have done articles for my provincial press, supporting this option of the married transferable allowance. I believe today we have a chance to move towards that, and I hope this House will decide very positively and clearly on this.

It is clear that all we are going to get in this Parliament is a 10% transferable allowance. Many people will be watching to see the Prime Minister make good his commitment to go further in the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can confirm in his response in what ways the Government are committed to doing more in the next parliamentary term to introduce a fully transferable allowance. That must be the No. 1 income tax priority for the next Parliament.

[Mr Burrowes]

I very much welcome clause 11 and not the amendment in the name of the Opposition.

Before coming here I had an interview with children who are taking part in the BBC “Newsround” consideration of Prime Minister’s questions. I did not have an opportunity to ask them about the transferable allowance, but as they grow into adulthood I suspect they will look back on the proceedings here and think it rather odd that we are trying to put down dividing lines and divide along party lines on the basic issue of marriage being recognised in the tax system. They will think it rather odd that people are trying to pit one family relationship against another, when this is a very simple and moderate measure that is recognised across the world.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been involved in the ups and downs of the Bill, and I have noticed from our debates on important clauses such as 1 and 2, on safeguarding religious liberty and on those who wish to opt in or out of same-sex marriage ceremonies, that the bulk of the scrutiny has come from those who oppose the Bill. That includes two thirds of the members of the parliamentary Conservative party, who did not support the Bill on Third Reading, with honourable additions in the form of members of other parties.

Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill’s passage by non-Church of England denominations, especially the Catholic Church, to which I pay tribute for its hard work and engagement with those on all sides of the argument. This is at the heart of amendments 1 and 2. Hon. Members have sought clarity through tabling amendments in Committee and on Report in this House and in the other place about the meaning of the word “compelled”. I pay tribute to Ministers for listening to the debate and to the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this regard, and I am grateful to the Government for tabling Lords amendments 1 and 2, which properly clarify the meaning of the word. They allay many of the concerns that have been raised about the quadruple lock.

I understand from the main denominations that they are satisfied that the locks now in place with the additional clarification are comprehensive and will protect both religious individuals and religious organisations on the issue of conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. Those amendments, coupled with Ministers’ assurances and explanations, particularly those given in the other place on the meaning of “compelled”, make it clear that compulsion “by any means”—those three words will have a very important impact on denominations on this matter—is prohibited under the Bill.

Therefore, as I understand it, any type of detrimental or unfavourable treatment, any civil or criminal action or penalty, and any less favourable treatment undertaken by a public authority against a religious organisation or individual that has not performed, has decided not to perform or has refused to perform a clause 2(1) or clause 2(2) activity will be absolutely prohibited. The words “by any means” are enormously welcomed by denominations beyond the reaches of the Church of England.

Religious organisations are protected. The Government’s amendments also protect them, when they are deciding whether or not to perform a clause 2(1) activity, against challenges—we pressed on these throughout the stages of the Bill—under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, which has been mentioned, and by way of judicial review or any other legal challenge on the ground that the religious organisation’s decision involves the exercise of a public function. I recognise that the Government have never considered that decision to involve the exercise of a public function, despite much debate and scrutiny, not least by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, the Government’s amendments 1 and 2 alleviate the perceived risk and that has an important impact; it is a real, measurable improvement made during the passage of the Bill.

We saw progress in the Commons Public Bill Committee, when heroes and villains came as witnesses before us. The Catholic contribution was met with derision in some ways. One area that met with derision concerned the amendment before us, as the point was made in a considered way that we needed to clarify the word “compelled”. So I welcome the fact that we have moved on from that derision. We have moved on from the swatting away of the amendments that sought this clarification in the Commons Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] We have also moved on from the “Star Wars” theme and the Jedi knights discussion. I am not sure what theme we need to move us into this particular passage. The helpful contributions made in the other place have moved us towards amendments 1 and 2, so we should not underestimate the movement and progress that have been made. There has been a lot of debate about the locks and how we have reached this point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to his diligence and scrutiny throughout the course of the Bill.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the steps forward that the amendments have made in at least addressing some of the issues raised by the religious groups. Opposition spokespeople, Members and Ministers have detailed the number of minority groups with religious views that were glad to see that the Bill had been changed. Does he recognise, as I do, the large number of religious groups, from across the whole UK, that were opposed to this measure? Even now, with the changes he has outlined, many people are opposed to it.

[Mr Burrowes]

I fully recognise that, and I have yet to come to my “but” and the concerns out there, which go beyond the issue of the marriage ceremony and religious premises. We recognise that the Government’s and Ministers’ commitment to this Bill not resulting in an encroachment on religious liberty—indeed there is a 100% guarantee—does not just encompass the walls of a church or religious premises; it goes beyond that into the public square and relates to people manifesting their faith in their workplace, their school and beyond. It is that area of scrutiny where the “but” comes in, although I still want to be positive before I get to that.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.

I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Jim Shannon]

I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.

There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:

“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

Burma (Human Rights)

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

I will get to the benchmarks shortly, but first I will give way again.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous in giving way, as always. He has brought an important issue to the Floor of the House.

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there has to be an embargo on the military equipment that the Burmese army is using against ethnic groups, and in particular against Christian groups? Does he agree that that would be one way of trying to address the cruel and violent activities of the Burmese army? My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has been involved in some talks with the Burmese Government and with groups out there, and I believe he has some knowledge of ways to address the issue.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We will hear from the Minister about the sanctions that still apply to military equipment. That embargo continues, whereas economic sanctions have been lifted. We still need to be rigorous about military hardware, particularly given the responsibility shared by the military for acts of omission, not always of commission.

The benchmarks for the lifting of sanctions included

“the unconditional release of remaining political prisoners and the removal of all restrictions placed on those already released”,

an end to conflict in the country,

“substantially improved access for humanitarian assistance”

and

“addressing the status and improving the welfare of the Rohingyas.”

It is therefore important that the Minister informs us whether, to the best of his knowledge—I recognise that it is not his primary responsibility in the Department—those criteria have been properly met. Does he also know why there was no reference in the EU Council conclusions to the situation in Kachin state? That is an interesting question.

Over the past year, Burmese minorities have suffered extraordinary attacks and human rights violations. Some of the most disturbing came when the Burmese army launched air strikes against Kachin Independence Army troops in Kachin state in December. The strikes lasted nearly a month. More than 100,000 Kachin civilians were internally displaced, and human rights organisations report cases of rape, torture, forced labour and killing of civilians.

The attacks followed an 18-month offensive by the Burma army, which broke a 17-year ceasefire with the KIA. In that offensive, human rights violations increased significantly, and 100,000 people fled their homes and remain displaced. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which I commend along with other organisations for highlighting the extent of the abuse, discovered horrific incidents of human rights being breached. One man told of how his wife was raped by Burmese soldiers and is assumed dead, but the Supreme Court in Naypyidaw dismissed all charges against the Burmese military, reinforcing the sense of many that the Burmese military have effective impunity. Other stories tell of children shot, a grandmother gang-raped and homes and churches destroyed and looted.

The marginalisation of Muslims takes its fullest and most monstrous form in a majority Rohingya area such as Arakan, but it is not limited to those areas. That is why we need to challenge the Burmese Government, and Burma in general, about how systemic the discrimination and abuse of human rights are. Even in the more progressive cities, Muslims are no strangers to discrimination. The 969 campaign, for example, attempts to ban Muslims from any non-Muslim shops. The fact that that is occurring in the cities is a symptom of the divisions that sadly run deep through Burmese society. The feelings that are manifested in segregated shops in Yangon are manifested in banning the sale of food to Rohingyas in Arakan state. There, many Arakanese block the Rohingya’s food supply. One Rohingya man was reportedly told, “We will stop all food for you, and do you know why? We’ll do it so you’ll leave here quickly and permanently.”

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

Both new clause 18 and amendment 120 concern sentences for driving over the prescribed limits for drugs and alcohol and both seek to fill a gap in sentencing. There are 220 traffic cases each year in which individuals die on our roads owing to a driver who has been impaired through drink or drugs.

On the subject of filling gaps, I pay tribute to the Government for filling the gap in drug-driving offences. The new offence will not require proof of impairment. Owing to the imminent arrival of roadside drugalysers, it will become an offence that sits alongside drink-driving. It will be possible to rely on proof that someone is over the prescribed limit, whether for alcohol or drugs, rather than relying solely on proof of impairment.

Here I must declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. I must confess that I recall many prosecutions that did not succeed because of ambiguities and complexities relating to proof of impairment. The filling of that gap might not have been welcome to some of my clients of old, but it will be welcome to victims of offences of this kind, and it will be welcome to those who believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that drink and drug-driving offences are prosecuted properly.

However, I am also concerned about another gap. The purpose of new clause 18 and amendment 120 is to draw attention to it, and to ensure that, in one way or another, we fill it. Without the new clause, the maximum custodial sentence for driving after consuming excess alcohol, or indeed drugs over the prescribed limit, will still be six months’ imprisonment. Statute has properly provided that, if carelessness or dangerousness is proved, greater penalties will follow. The last Conservative Government recognised the need to ensure that drivers who caused death while under the influence of drugs or drink should be more heavily penalised. We now have on the statute book the offence of death caused by careless driving while the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

In 2011, the number of drivers tried for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was 27, and the number of those convicted was zero. Rather than relying on the good work of the last Conservative Government, we need to ensure that it is followed through in practice. When it comes to the sad and tragic cases of people who die as a result of the actions of drivers, particularly drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs, there must be a penalty that exceeds the fairly minimum penalty of a six-month sentence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I believe that in Northern Ireland there are already rules, regulations and laws that address this issue specifically. There has also been a campaign aimed at dealing with drink and drugs. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it might help the Government to contact the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, where policing and justice are a devolved matter? Might they learn something about how these matters can be handled?

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments are intended to enable the Government to conduct a proactive review, which should, indeed, involve looking at what happens on the opposite shore. We all want to tackle the profound consequences of death caused by drivers under the influence, and ensure that they receive the appropriate penalty.

Rohingya Communities

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on bringing this issue to the House. It takes a crisis to bring such matters to everyone’s attention, as he said.

I have spoken in the House on many occasions about the persecution of ethnic groups, particularly Christians. I remind Members that a small Christian minority in the area has also been persecuted over the years. Perhaps the Minister will give us some indication about that when he responds. I congratulate him on his elevation. Two years in Northern Ireland maketh a man, and here he is in a new job.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on highlighting the suffering of the Rohingya people as well as drawing attention to the ongoing persecution of Christian minorities. Later today, at the all-party parliamentary group on Burma, I will be chairing a presentation by the Chin Human Rights Organisation of its report, “Threats to our existence: persecution of ethnic Chin Christians in Burma”, which highlights the fact that that ongoing persecution has not got the attention that it deserves.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and agree wholeheartedly that the issues must be highlighted. I am conscious of the need for religious liberty for Christians, as well as for Muslims or Buddhists. That opportunity should be available to all, but in many cases it is not.

The 2012 state riots highlighted the ongoing conflicts between ethnic groups in Rakhine state in Myanmar. At the same time, they show that the UN and our Government have a role to play in the crisis. What contact has the Minister had with the UN? Have the British Government applied pressure through the European Union on behalf of the Burmese people?

The Myanmar authorities report that the violence between ethnic groups has left 78 people dead, 87 injured and thousands of homes destroyed. Other figures indicate that as many as 650 people could be dead. Whatever the figures are, the issue is that cruel and vicious ethnic violence is taking place, and we must see what our Government can do to help to end it. We have a responsibility on the world stage.

A state of emergency has been declared. In July 2012, the Myanmar Government asserted that the Rohingya minority group, classified as stateless Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh, is not included among its more than 130 ethnic races and has no claim to Myanmar citizenship, which is why the Rohingya do not receive the protection that they should. Has the Minister had discussions on the matter? If so, what assurances can we give to the Rohingya people about their citizenship and the protection that they should receive but clearly are not receiving?

The Rohingya have been displaced and are living in camps. Political leaders are working to expel them from the country. Burma’s President, Thein Sein, has attempted to hand over the group to the UN refugee agency. Have our Government had any contact with the UN about the issue? Bangladesh, already home to an estimated Rohingya refugee population of 300,000, has turned away more migrants. It has sealed its 200 km border with Myanmar, as it is unable to cope with the strain of more refugees. What humanitarian aid have the British Government given, either on their own or with the EU or UN? Clearly, a crisis is unfolding very quickly and many people are under pressure.

In conclusion, it is clear that these problems must be addressed and that this cannot be done by Government officials washing their hands of a sector of their people. I have stood in support of many ethnic groups that are persecuted because of their religion, skin colour, culture or history. I urge the Minister to respond to the ethnic human rights crisis and to see what we can do to help.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Burrowes

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the passion in his voice.

Mindful of those points, it is a minimal responsibility of policy makers to remove all obstacles to marriage resulting from fiscal policy. Indeed, there is a good case for considering what steps could be taken to support marriage. I believe that the proposal before us is one suggestion that we should be considering. In the light of that, I am delighted by what the Prime Minister has said. Some people in this Chamber would say, “If the Prime Minister supports it, we don’t,” but if the Prime Minister says something good, let us support it, whether he is the Prime Minister or not—and if one of my colleagues says that something is good, then that is good as well.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case on behalf of his constituents and presenting his own personal view, but does he also recognise that a strong case has been made in those countries that recognise marriage in a way that this country does not?