Jim Shannon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me for pushing on this matter, but I did ask about the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, for what I think is the second time today. It is, and always will be, a pleasure. I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). In the short time that he has been here, he has made a reputation for himself as a fighter and a person who speaks up for his constituents. I sit straight across the Chamber from him and I am always impressed by him. We do not agree on everything but today, on this subject matter, he and I agree. This is one thing we can definitely agree on, and well done to him. I am grateful to address this House on an issue that tests not only our policies but our principles, and that is how we treat those who come seeking refuge and hope. Today I speak on refugee and citizen rights in the United Kingdom, a subject of both legal importance and moral imperative. This March, the Government imposed a blanket ban on citizenship for individuals who entered the UK irregularly, even if they have been granted asylum and have lived here for years. The Refugee Council estimates that some 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum may now be blocked from ever obtaining British citizenship. I ask the Minister, who as she knows I respect immensely, to answer the question of those 71,000 who have lived here for a number of years: will they have the opportunity of getting British citizenship? This week, Parliament will be considering crucial legislation, including the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and the ongoing Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This moment offers a real opportunity to safeguard the future of those who have made the UK their home. I love the diversity that I have in Newtownards. It is not as big as in London, but there are people from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine and all over eastern Europe. They bring history, culture, friendship and social engagement and they enrich us as a society. I believe we should try to maintain that. The UK has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with those fleeing conflict, persecution and violence. We have honoured our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Yet recent policy changes may have the unintended consequence—I believe it would be unintended; I do not believe it is a policy of Government—of leaving some recognised refugees without a clear pathway to fully participate in society. I want to see them having that right. It is vital that we ensure that those who have been granted asylum are not left in long-term uncertainty. A clear and fair pathway to citizenship is an important part of helping individuals to put down roots, contribute fully and feel a genuine sense of belonging in the communities that they now call home. Citizenship is more than just paperwork; it represents civic responsibility, stability and inclusion. As Parliament continues to examine the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we must be mindful of our humanitarian responsibilities. That includes ensuring timely decisions on asylum claims, restoring service standards that offer clarity and dignity, and protecting the right to family reunion, which means so much to all of us here. Such steps are not just compassionate; they are also practical and necessary for social cohesion. Furthermore, we must take care to ensure that assessments of good character do not rest solely on whether someone arrived through irregular routes, which is often a last resort for those fleeing persecution. Each case should be looked at individually, with a recognition of context and care, not with a one-size-fits-all approach that risks deepening hardship for those already in vulnerable situations. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I see the consequences of exclusion every day—not because I am better than anybody else, but because I focus on that and I see more of it happening. That is why it is important to me. Forced statelessness or permanent limbo adversely affect mental health, community cohesion and integration. We must speak not with condemnation, but with compassion and reason. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I share those personal beliefs. I always try to leave these things with a Bible quotation. The Bible reminds us in Hebrews 13:2: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” That verse speaks to the heart of our shared humanity. It is a reminder that how we treat the stranger, the refugee and the vulnerable reflects the depth of our national character as individuals. This House has long stood as a voice for those in need, and we must continue in that tradition. Let us show leadership not only in lawmaking, but in compassion. Let us ensure that our policies uphold both justice and mercy, and let us do so with humility, conviction and care. In defending the rights of refugees, we reaffirm the values that have long made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a place of refuge, opportunity and hope.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been asked by representatives of people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis to put this question to the Secretary of State, and I hope she will give me the answer. They are worried that people with these fluctuating conditions will be locked out of qualifying for the higher rate of the UC health element, as a functional limitation must “constantly” apply for a claimant to meet the severe conditions criteria. Will she commit to add an explicit reference to the Bill to ensure that those with fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS are not locked out of the higher rate? It is really important for those people.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Infant Feeding · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady; I spoke to her before the debate. In the last Parliament, one of the Scots Nats MPs was chair of the APPG. I was supportive of that as a man, as I thought that was important. My wife was an example of where breastfeeding is so important. Is the hon. Lady aware that Northern Ireland had the top score—69.5 out of 100—among UK nations? That may be because Northern Ireland has already put policies in place and is the only nation to have completed updated resources on infant feeding and HIV. Will she join me in urging the Northern Ireland health trust to share best practice with the other devolved nations and with the Minister to help encourage breastfeeding among those mothers who are able to do so?

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and she is right to raise this issue, which is very prevalent in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of specialist staff and training in adult ADHD, which is becoming a bigger part of the conversation. More needs to be done to rehabilitate in a certain way to ensure that prisoners are in a position to learn. Does the hon. Lady agree that, specifically for adult ADHD, the Government need to allocate more to training to ensure that prison staff are equipped to support people in prison settings who have ADHD?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene so well. He set out the landscape and introduced all the issues, and all Members who have contributed have, by and large, comprehended the importance of grouse shooting. I declare an interest as I am a member of BASC, the Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sport Ireland and the Ulster Farmers Union. All four of those, along with the NFU, support grouse shooting. It was important to put that on record, in case anyone thought I was being biased. The reason I joined those organisations is because they represent my views. All those bodies have a clearly-stated opinion on grouse shooting; it is an opinion that I hold to as well. I enjoy country sports, although, to be truthful, because of an incredibly busy schedule, I only attend shoots twice a year—maybe once a year. Every bird or rabbit I shoot—the number of animals goes down as my age goes up—finds its way to the table as dinner, and that is a fact. There is no wastage, as far as I am concerned. I see the bird or rabbit to table, and that is something I can endorse. I recall that when she was First Minister, my party colleague who is now Baroness Foster of the other place informed me one day that she enjoyed pheasant, so after some of my endeavours at pheasant shooting I would leave them hanging from her door at the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. She would take them home and serve her family—farm to table was never as quick. Many people contribute to and input into grouse shooting—I will enlarge on that later in my speech—and that is its importance. For the record, we own a small farm, but my mum and dad had nothing when they started off. I think my dad had the wheel of a cart when he started out in life. He did of course manage to buy a farm, but it was not given to him. He was not one of the landed gentry or one of the privileged; he worked hard for every pound that he had, along with my mum. Through their endeavour, they got the farm that we have today. On that farm, our contribution is 3,500 trees that we planted and that have now reached maturity. There are two duck ponds, the hedgerows have been retained and the raptors—the birds of prey—have a place. All those things were done because we understand the balance of nature and how we can contribute, making sure it is done right. I walked across the fields after silage cutting about four weeks ago, and I have never seen as many songbirds in my life on our land as I saw this time. Is that a contribution from someone who loves the land, or from someone who does not know about it? I shall let Members make their own decision. I want to mention the Glenwherry shoot, which is the only grouse shoot in Northern Ireland. It is sponsored by BASC and the landowner. It is a success, but why is that? To start with, Glenwherry had no more than about 10 grouse, but it built that up. As others have said, the magpies, the crows, the greybacks, the foxes and the rats —all the predators—were controlled. It was gamekeepered, and the heath and moorland was burnt in a controlled burning, so that it could regenerate and produce the heather for the young birds and the grouse. Today, that is a successful grouse shoot. Why is it successful? Because grouse shooters know how to do it. They know how to deliver a successful grouse shoot. The lapwings and curlews also gathered momentum as a result. They have a place to breed every year because of the efforts of the gamekeeper and the landowner—the efforts of those who put money into the grouse shooting to make it a success. I have never shot a grouse—never in my life—but I know that the principles of countryside management are in place and therefore sustainability is key. The shooting season begins on 12 August, which is referred to as the glorious 12th. I will celebrate a much more glorious 12th in two weeks’ time in Northern Ireland—we will not be shooting any grouse, but doing something slightly different. The season finishes on 30 November in Northern Ireland and on 10 December on the GB mainland. Grouse are prized by chefs and those who eat game. The first birds of the season are rushed to restaurants here in London and elsewhere across the United Kingdom. Nearly 100% of grouse shot will be food for the table. There is no wastage—no shooting for the sake of a number. The birds are used to feed people throughout the United Kingdom. We need to have an honest discussion about what grouse shooting entails. I mean not the skill of shooting straight—though I probably need a lot of lessons in that—but the year-long hard slog that it takes to manage the environment to protect the habitat of the grouse. Seventy-five per cent of the world’s heather moorland is found in Britain, and we have a custodial responsibility to look after it. Who looks after it? The gamekeepers, the grouse shooters and those who own the land. Many have described heather moorland as our rainforests here in the United Kingdom. Up to 1.8 million hectares of uplands are managed as grouse moors, and a study of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland found that the densities of golden plover and lapwing were five times greater on managed grouse moors compared with unmanaged moorland, as has been mentioned. Curlew have doubled on managed moorland and redshank are also more abundant, because of grouse shooting, predator control and management. This will be of interest to you, Mrs Harris, as a Member who represents a constituency in Wales, and hopefully to everyone. In the Berwyn range, an upland area of Wales that lost management for grouse shooting, surveys showed a dramatic decline in upland breeding of waders between 1983 to 1985 and 2002. Overall, the abundance of all breeding waders declined by 80%. There is the evidential base—it is all about evidence, is it not? The evidence points to the fact that grouse moor management, alongside shooting organisations, landowners and predator control, leads to more grouse and more waders. Surely, that has to be good. The equivalent of more than 33,000 cars’ worth of carbon emissions is being removed from the atmosphere each year because of the environmental work of grouse moor estates in the north of England, and grouse moor management has restored some 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the last 20 years. Again, why are people doing this? Because they want to retain the land. Our grouse moors are our rainforests here in the United Kingdom—they are what we are trying to retain. Let us give credit to those who do that, rather than having those who do not understand it, or who do not respect those people, pass silly comments. Time prevents me from continuing to outline the vast array of benefits, but I want to outline the financial benefits of shooting. Grouse moor owners in England spend more than £52.5 million on moor management, whereas other land uses in the uplands, such as farming and forestry, depend on Government subsidy. Indeed, businesses associated with grouse shooting benefit by some £15.2 million every year. We cannot ignore the contribution, the jobs and the money that goes into the economy. Grouse moors in England and Scotland support around 3,000 full-time jobs. Country sports tourism, including grouse shooting, generates £155 million annually for the economy in Scotland—the very place that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire represents; he understands the commitment, as others do. With around 970,000 bed-nights purchased each year by domestic and international tourists, the benefits of this carefully curated aspect of country sports are clear. I conclude by returning to my first point. Grouse are eaten and used, not wasted. No benefit to the environment or economy from grouse shooting is wasted. That is why I could not agree to a ban on this vital part of our countryside management. I hope that the House recognises —I believe it does—the good that comes from grouse shooting. Hopefully it will be portrayed as such in all the magazines and perhaps even on TV.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  Just a quick one—I had hoped to speak to the Minister before she came to the Dispatch Box. In Northern Ireland, rare cancers account for a quarter of all cancer cases in both men and women. Will there be extra money set aside for Northern Ireland, where health is devolved, to deal with rare cancers? It is not just those who have rare cancers who have to deal with them; their families do, too. I ask that question of the Minister genuinely and respectfully.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this Bill. There is no doubt but that it is absolutely necessary. National security is paramount when considering revoking citizenship, as the Minister has outlined, and the Bill is necessary to close a particular loophole and ensure that no person can bypass it. In Northern Ireland, many people claim both Irish and UK citizenship, as they are able to. I understand that the Bill will make sure their UK citizenship can be revoked, but they will still have the right as an Irish passport holder to travel to Northern Ireland. That is a very peculiar case. I am quite happy if the Minister wants to come back to me on this, but I just want to make sure that no one can get around these measures by using an alternative passport—an Irish passport or whatever it may be—and that Northern Ireland will be under the same laws as the rest of the UK.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answers. She is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and supports the SMEs there, so when it comes to the defence industrial strategy to support SMEs, could she update the House, and myself in particular, on what she and the Government are doing to help SMEs in Northern Ireland to increase jobs and also increase contracts?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We do not have parish councils in Northern Ireland, but councils have an important role. They are not the enforcers of road safety like the police, but they have an active role. It is clear that local knowledge—the thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to—is imperative when considering wide-ranging road safety issues. Does he agree that joined-up thinking between branches of Government is essential to improve safety and ensure that people power always wins?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 26 Jun 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  If we are to deliver local bus services, we must deliver buses that are efficient and technologically modern to ensure we can meet those targets. With that in mind, will the Minister assure the House that any action taken by Government to provide buses and local bus services will support bus manufacturing across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, in particular, Wrightbus in North Antrim?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to raise the urgent situation facing Christians in Syria, where a suicide attack on a Damascus church recently claimed the lives of at least 20 people and injured many more. The brutal assault is a devastating reminder of the threats that Christians and other religious communities continue to face in Syria, amid years of conflict and displacement. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Office gives the House an assessment of the attack and the wider security situation for religious minorities in Syria? What steps can the Foreign Secretary take with international partners to support those vulnerable communities, ensure humanitarian access and hold the perpetrators of these atrocities to account?

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on adverts targeting young women for their eggs and attendant consequences. I know that another debate was supposed to be happening here, but unfortunately for the hon. Member who secured that debate, it was not able to take place. That was fortunate for myself and others who have come along today, so I thank the Committee for having offered this slot to us on Tuesday. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She always seems to come along to answer questions on health issues, and I thank her for that. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), as well as others who have come along to participate. The issue of adverts for IVF egg donation has been brought to my attention, and we have some people in the Gallery today who have enabled me to prepare this speech—as well as the questions I wish to ask the Minister —in order to highlight this issue and raise awareness. I thank hon. Members for participating in this debate, which could not be more timely, and the Minister for joining us today. I look forward to her response. This issue is not as widely understood in this House as perhaps it ought to be. When I made representations to the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked what I was trying to achieve. I explained that, and the Committee very kindly offered me the opportunity to have this debate. This issue must be debated. Adverts in public places asking women to donate their eggs for use by others have hugely increased in recent years. They are seen at bus stops, at stalls in university student unions, in shopping centres and on social media sites. It needs to be regularised and there needs to be departmental input into how it happens. There needs to be rules on how it takes place. I hope that my speech will illustrate the clear issues and why they are so important. All my contributions in this House start in my constituency of Strangford. My constituents have asked me to bring forward this issue, and it has been very kindly supported by others across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Adverts are not legally required to state the health risks up front, but they should be. This is despite the process for retrieving eggs from a young woman requiring her to be put through the early stages of IVF and an invasive and often painful surgical procedure to remove them. IVF is so important. I read in the paper today about the number of IVF successes, and I welcome that. This is not about stopping IVF treatment. It is not about ensuring that people cannot have babies. Nothing makes our relationships strong like having children. I always think of those who perhaps cannot and who wish they could. IVF gives them an opportunity to do that. In 2011, the amount a young woman could be compensated for her eggs rose to £750 per cycle. Thirteen years later, in October 2024, following advice from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, it rose again, this time to £985, with additional expenses payments able to be made in some cases. That shows that there is a cost factor, and payments should be along the lines of cost. Women as young as 18 can donate their eggs for use by others—either for IVF for older people or for surrogacy —and demand is soaring. According to the HFEA, women can undergo as many as 10 donation rounds—a huge toll on any lady’s body. Later, I will give the price at which fertility clinics sell the eggs on, so hon. Members will see the difference between that and the figure that ladies are given for a cycle of eggs. In 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed to me in a letter that it did not undertake an impact assessment before allowing the payments to women for their eggs to rise, nor has it undertaken a long-term study on the effects of egg retrieval on women’s bodies, but I believe it must do so. Clinics do not undertake long-term follow-up checks on donors’ health. Again, I would have thought that that happens, and I am really surprised that it does not. There seems to be no accountability in the process. Concerningly, between 2021 and 2023, the Scottish Government also targeted women with open adverts for their eggs, and four NHS health boards in Scotland continue to do so as a result of surging demand.

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred in an intervention to the advertising issue, which is really important. She talked about Scotland, as I did, but there is also advertising elsewhere that needs to be controlled. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and I had a discussion at some length before the debate today, and the very things that she wants to see, we all wish to see. We all recognise that IVF gives potential mothers the opportunity to have a child; the joy that can bring can never be emphasised enough. However, we must ensure that all the risks involved are known beforehand. She referred in particular to ovarian cancer and egg donation. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) referred to the issue of compensation. When ladies give eggs as a donation, their reasons for doing so are above board. Whenever eggs are donated for compensation, which is the word that is used, unfortunately it can lead to other things as well. I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution and for the example she gave, which showed the joy that having a child can bring. She referred to those who donate eggs willingly, without any financial obligations. She also talked about surrogacy, which is a different issue. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for her contribution. She brings a wealth of knowledge, through her doctorship. I also thank her for outlining all the cases that she did. She gave the example of one of her constituents, which perhaps highlighted what the issues are. As always, I thank the Minister for taking the time to come along. My request to her is this: whenever we have a chance to look over this debate and check the Hansard report, we might have further questions, so would she be agreeable to coming back to us if we do? It is very obvious to me that the Government recognise that there are issues that are outstanding and that must be resolved. With that in mind, I again thank all hon. Members, particularly the Minister, for their contributions, and I also thank those in the Public Gallery, who have come along to listen to our contributions today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady very much for that point. That is the central thrust of this important debate. There do not seem to be any controls, and donation is almost glamourised, so for those in financial need—I will talk about them shortly—it may look too good to be true. It certainly does need regulating, and I thank the hon. Lady for coming along and making that pertinent point. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government can regulate things in a constructive, helpful and safe way. I do not know of any other Government in the world who ask women to donate their eggs for use by others, so why are we doing it here in a way that can undermine women’s health? It does not seem to be regulated in any way, and there do not seem to be any rules. That needs to be changed. Research from Surrogacy Concern cited HFEA data showing that between 1991 and 2000, there were 736 egg donors aged between 18 and 25. Further research has shown that between 2000 and 2022, there were at least 78 women across the UK aged just 18 who registered to donate their eggs, 283 aged 19, and 468 aged just 20. That gives an indication of the age that this starts, and I will outline some of the reasons why this can have an impact later down the line. Between 2000 and 2022, the HFEA registered 5,158 new donors across the UK aged 18 to 25 for egg donation. I say all those things because I believe that this is such an important issue, and that we are on the cusp of uncovering a major public scandal in the way egg donation is advertised. The issue gets worse when we look at the socioeconomic background of the donors. In 2024, the Government confirmed to me that between 2011 and 2020, 4,147 donors came from the three most deprived deciles of the index of multiple deprivation. In stark contrast, there were 3,007 donors from the least deprived deciles. Again, as I will explain, those who may feel pressurised may see donation as a method of income without understanding all the potential side effects. Between 1991 and 2022, 23,522 new British egg donors were registered across the UK by the HFEA—21,020 from England, 1,315 from Scotland, 954 from Wales and 245 from Northern Ireland. In 2022 alone, 1,645 new British donors were registered in the UK. Campaigners are concerned about the developing societal entitlement to women’s eggs, and that eggs are becoming a tradable commodity. They should not be, but that is the perception—indeed, that is the reality. Eggs for donation need to be of high quality, so only women aged 18 to 35 are targeted by fertility clinics. I believe that a power imbalance is developing between young and old, between poor and rich, and, in many cases, between female and male. The majority of egg donors are also not mothers, raising concerns about the psychological impact of a woman’s own genetic offspring being raised by others, which may only be realised years after donation. There is also a concerning development whereby young women’s bodies seem to be commodified resources to be assessed for the benefit of others. That concerns me greatly. One London egg centre has an online catalogue—my goodness me—where donors can be searched for by their ethnic background, their hair colour, the colour of their eyes, their height, their skin tone and their educational attainment, raising further concerns about the development of designer babies. In other words, people think, “We’ll pick through this catalogue, and we’ll see which one we’d like to have.” It should never be that way. Despite women supposedly not being paid for their eggs, donors have reported receiving payment, which the industry terms “compensation”. Originally £750 but now £985, it is paid into their bank accounts directly after egg retrieval, with no expenses claims or receipts needed to be submitted to the clinic. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. There is nothing to follow. Meanwhile, campaigners have seen plenty of examples of payments quoted up front and adverts directly incentivising young women to undergo the procedure for money, raising the likelihood of exploitation; the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) made that point very clearly. There is a significant risk to low-income, working-class women and to students. It also stands in stark contrast to expenses payments for British kidney donors, which must be strictly itemised with receipts provided. If that is the way to do it for kidney donors, it is the way to do it for egg donors. The HFEA claims that egg donors largely state they are undergoing the procedure for altruistic reasons, but we must acknowledge the risk that some young women’s desire to help others, often at a cost to themselves, is being used against them. Eggs are sold in packages for thousands of pounds by egg banks and fertility clinics. The London Egg Bank offers six frozen eggs for sale at £5,500, and the Manchester Fertility clinic offers a package of eight frozen eggs starting from £11,000. That £985 against those prices gives an indication of where the real money is. The majority of British fertility clinics are now owned by private equity firms—again, there is little or no regulation, no rules and no safety measures. Something needs to be in place. The process of egg donation is gruelling, which is sometimes overlooked. Women must inject hormones in a process known as downregulation, which switches off the pituitary gland in order to stop the ovaries working temporarily and allow the lady’s cycle, in its totality, to be controlled by the clinic. In cases of fresh egg donation to another woman, the donor’s cycle is synchronised with that of the recipient. The donor then takes follicle-stimulating hormones to overstimulate the ovaries into producing an artificially high number of eggs at the same time. The clinic wants extra eggs, wants the donation to be larger than the lady would normally produce, and the woman then injects human chorionic gonadotropin, or HCG, which helps eggs to mature, ready for retrieval. This maturation mimics the natural process that normally triggers ovulation. Finally, eggs are collected from the woman using a needle that punctures the vaginal wall and perforates the ovary, gathering fluid from each follicle—the fluid containing the eggs. Donors in the UK have reported that dozens of eggs, and often even more, have been retrieved in just one donation round. One British donor reported 42 eggs being retrieved in one cycle; another reported 46 eggs being retrieved in the next cycle. That stands in stark contrast to the one egg a month that the female body naturally ovulates. I hope that those who are here today will understand that if a lady’s natural ovulation rate is one egg a month, but 42 or 46 eggs are produced and farmed, that is very much going against what the body does naturally, which has a detrimental effect on some people. Nobody fails to have sympathy for those who struggle to have a child and who therefore embark on fertility treatment. I know quite a number of ladies who have embarked on such treatment, and their joy at having their wee baby is something that words cannot describe. The look of happiness on the faces of the mum and dad is great, as is the fact that the wee child has been born. However, the use of donor eggs has real societal consequences and potentially there can be a very negative long-term physical and psychological impact on young women who donate their eggs. We must rebalance this conversation to take into account the impact on the young women who undergo these procedures. We need to have regulation; we need to have rules in place. The process needs to be controlled, rather than the matter just being seen from the point of view of those who want access to donor eggs. We know from the experience of women who underwent forced adoption in mother and baby homes in the 20th century that often it takes years for women to come forward and report harm done to them in the past. Some donors have reported needing hysterectomies as a result of the damage they sustained during egg retrieval. Other donors have said that when they discovered they had genetic diseases, the clinics refused to take further action and put the onus back on the donor themselves to report to the HFEA. Those checks should have been done before donation, not afterwards. Similarly, donors are not required to undergo enhanced carrier screening, leading to a risk that some genetic diseases might be unknowingly passed on in the donor eggs and ultimately on to the wee baby who will be born. Another donor has reported donating eggs in her early 20s, only to find when she tried to start her own family in her early 30s that she was unable to do so. Other donors report endometriosis and adenomyosis developing after donation. Quite simply, the long-term risks to women’s health from egg donation are unknown and largely unstudied. Today, I am hopefully outlining where the problems are, why regulation is needed and why I believe that the Government need to step in. Women who have undergone egg retrieval for their own IVF have reported complications and side effects, including sepsis, abscesses, perforated bowels, severe pain during or after retrieval, and even slipping into a coma as a result of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. All this risk is borne by young people so that older people can purchase eggs from fertility clinics and egg banks. According to the HFEA, between 1991 and 2022 —some 31 years—44,760 IVF cycles involving donor eggs were made for people aged 40 or over. Young donors are at higher risk of ovarian hyper- stimulation syndrome because of the higher number of eggs that they have compared with older women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that as many as 30% of women aged under 30 who undergo egg retrieval may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Complications arising from OHSS can kill. That is why there needs to be regulation and consideration of safety as part of the process. Two women died in England from such complications in 2005-06. In 2023 there were 53 severe or critical cases of OHSS reported to the HFEA. Yet nowhere in the adverts, online or anywhere else are the risks stated, and they should be. Those donating eggs should be aware of the risks. Donors have reported that clinics mention the risks and likely side effects only briefly and not in depth. They should be stated in depth, but they are not. Counselling for donors is offered, but is not mandatory. We must look at international comparators. I always like to see what has been happening elsewhere. In Germany there is no egg donation at all. German legislation specifically prohibits the “splintering”—that is the word used—of motherhood that egg donation and surrogacy create. In Italy, donors cannot be compensated at all so that women are not incentivised to undergo the procedure because of financial need. We must also consider the donor-conceived child. Egg and sperm donations are not meant to create more than 10 families. How many times have I read in the press about men who have fathered, through their sperm, perhaps as many as 100-plus children in the United Kingdom and across the world? One day a young boy and girl could meet, marry, and actually be brother and sister. There needs to be a limit, which is 10, but it is clear that some clinics do not have the control that perhaps they should have. As gamete donation and use rapidly increases, the likelihood of genetic half-siblings across multiple households, often in close geographical proximity to one another, increases. That is what I fear no controls means. Although British clinics must ensure that donor identities can be revealed to children at 18 years of age, many people resident in the UK still travel abroad for IVF, including to jurisdictions where anonymous gametes and sex selection of embryos are legal. That means hundreds, if not thousands, of children are growing up in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland unable ever to trace their genetic parents. The evidence is strong enough to call on the Government to raise the minimum age for egg donors to 25, because of the effect it has on those under that age who donate eggs. Secondly, we should ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs—the very thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to and which we are all very aware of. Advertising for surrogate mothers is already banned, so why not ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs? Thirdly, we should end payments to donors to ensure they are not donating because of financial need. In other words, their financial circumstances could put them in a quandary when it comes to doing what they are doing. At a minimum, adverts must state the health risks up front and the minimum donor age must rise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the issue back to the Department and that the Government will act quickly to protect and prioritise young women and their health.

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive review. I have three quick questions. First, will the Government commit to undertaking a long-term study into the long-term health outcomes of women? That is one of the things I hope to see happen when it comes to egg retrieval. Secondly, will the Government review the safety of offering £985 per donation, which is sometimes said to be compensation? Thirdly—I hope I am not pressing the Minister too hard; I am quite happy for her to come back to us on this—everyone who has participated in the debate has expressed concern about the adverts, so we are keen to hear her thoughts on banning those.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement. Nobody in the House can doubt the sincerity of his careful words and commitment to what is best for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the G7 and NATO summit. The Prime Minister will be aware of my support for Israel and that of so many in this great nation. The situation was, I believe, one of the major issues of the summit. Can the Prime Minister please outline whether time was taken, with our closest ally, the United States of America, to discuss steps that can be taken to cut the head off the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ensure that the USA bombing of the Iranian nuclear programme was a success and thereby secure a truce and lasting peace in the middle east?

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this debate today. For years, the BBC has been the trusted voice of impartiality across the globe. That reputation of trust has been hard earned. We have much to thank those journalists of days gone by, who put their lives on the line to report truth. They stood in times of danger, determined to ensure that the world knew what was happening and were giants in truth. However, with the polarisation of opinion and the politicisation of news beyond what was ever experienced, impartiality is hard won in any news network, and the BBC is no different. We used to have hard-hitting questions that struck to the heart of an issue, but now we often have “gotcha” moments for the sake of vanity rather than pursuit of truth—those moments annoy me. We see the demonisation of one nation while another is extolled, and when true statistics come to light, the correction is a line on a website. Meanwhile, reputations once destroyed are gone forever. This is a weighty burden and a power that should be carefully utilised. I recognise the good things that the BBC do, but I want to give two examples of where they fall short and why they should be accountable for that. The concerns with the BBC are well documented, and they include its perceived impartiality. The list of top 10 donors to the BBC include the FCDO, as well as several UN agencies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Global Affairs Canada, and many others. The cynic in me, and many others like me, questions whether that might affect impartiality. I make no accusations, but if the shoe fits, wear it; in this case, if the lens needs focusing because it is blurred, correct it. We rely on the global BBC for impartial news, and there is work to be done to restore that. I will give two examples. First, ask any member of the Jewish community whether they feel that the truth about the middle east has been related, and the response will be passionate, but also detailed, with numerous examples of times when impartiality has failed. That simply should not be the case. Secondly, earlier in the year, the documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, was pulled from iPlayer after it emerged that a 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. This week, another documentary was pulled due to fears about impartiality. It will be aired elsewhere, but clearly the BBC has a real, substantiated difficulty that it must overcome. In my personal opinion, that must happen. While there is a licence fee, there is a need to conform to the standards. The BBC must become the BBC of yesterday—the BBC that had that reputation for impartiality and for telling the truth without any of the bias that we have seen over the past year and a half. If it can again become that impartial organisation, I believe that it will be welcomed by everyone.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  I was fortunate to be there and had the opportunity to meet Lord Coaker. I was clear to him, as were the 60,000 people who turned out to commend and celebrate such a wonderful occasion. Will the Minister outline later on what can be done to recruit more Territorial Army soldiers? Will there be flexibility with employers and jobs and courses that people can do to enlarge the numbers of cadets?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this debate. He said that it is his first Westminster Hall debate; no doubt, now that he has the taste for it, he will be back next week for another one. I jest, of course, but I am sure that he will be back at some time in the future. I am a strong supporter of banking hubs and offering communities the service that they deserve, so it is great to be present both to support the hon. Gentleman, and to ask the Minister for help constructively across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Banks are not closing just in South West Hertfordshire; they are closing everywhere else in the United Kingdom. Over the past six or seven years, 11 banks have closed in my constituency. We feel the pain of that even today. Speaking locally, from the point of view of my constituency, local high streets in Northern Ireland have witnessed a series of banking closures over the past 12 to 24 months. The Ards peninsula, where I live, is a banking desert. All the banks that were on the peninsula have closed. In fairness, they have been replaced by two credit unions, and the post offices have been strengthened, so there are some things to fall back on—but the banks on the Ards peninsula are all away. They went to other towns and bigger cities, which do not have the same accessibility for those who need them, especially those who are vulnerable, elderly and isolated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus services, but they are not always available to get to the banks or even to the cities, so the accessibility of the services is limited. Banking and post office services are used daily and are essential to the lives of our constituents. Northern Ireland has a range of banking hubs across the province. This year, it was announced that two are to be developed in my constituency. One has opened in Comber. It is in an excellent location, exactly in the centre of the town. The post office is there, and the four banks—two of which used to operate in the town—do a half-day each in the Comber hub. From the point of view of a potentially good service, the hub is a step in the right direction. The other hub, in Ballynahinch, is to open shortly as well. The same offer will be available there; the banks that were in the town will do a half-day each and the post office is available within that. Will that meet all the banking requests that people have? Probably not—but it does, by and large, give people access to the banks. The problem I have with bank hubs is that, between when the banks closed and when the hubs were instated, there was a time of perhaps two years. Cash Access UK is delivering those hubs to support residents with the services that they require. We undertake a lot of discussion nowadays on digital inclusion and exclusion. While it is great that we as a society are able to modernise, that does sometimes mean our elderly population, who are used to doing things a certain way, are left behind. Face-to-face services that are accessible for them are imperative. I hope that in future we can look to a greater scope of hubs across the UK, which will also increase employment in local areas. I conclude with this comment as an example of the problem we are facing: last year one of my staff bought her first house, and her solicitor required a printed statement from her help to buy ISA for Barclays bank. The Barclays in Newtownards, where she lives, closed in 2023. The Barclays mobile service in Bangor, around a 15-minute drive away, could not carry out that function as it did not have the services available. She had to travel to the centre of Belfast, which is 40 minutes by car, to obtain a single, one-sided document. Banking hubs and mobile vans are great, but they must be accessible in terms of what services they can carry out for people; otherwise, in many cases, there is no convenience. Banking hubs delivers some things, but they do not deliver them all.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which intrigues me. Coming from Northern Ireland, we are a nation of flag fliers; I have flown a flag nearly all my life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only flag that should have pride of place on public buildings is the Union flag? We should take the opportunity to fly it to encourage a sense of national pride, and as a symbol of the things that unite us. We have different colours, creeds, genders, ambitions, qualities and skills, but we are all British, and together we can make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a better place for everyone.