Baby Loss

• Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)

   

   
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, made a courageous and gracious speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made a powerful and practical one. The number of colleagues in the House who have shared their personal experiences shows how many people across the country have been affected by this issue and the great potential there is to make a real difference to so many people’s lives by bringing it forward for debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for doing that.

  I add my tributes to those of other hon. Members to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Gower (Byron Davies), and the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). They were truly moving. I have never before in more than six years seen so many Members so visibly moved in the Chamber.

  I also pay tribute to the many midwives, consultants and other NHS staff, who in many cases provide good medical and bereavement care to families who have experienced stillbirth and miscarriage. As we have heard, for many people, losing a child is the most difficult time ​in their lives. High-quality, empathetic care is vital. Thanks should go to all those in this country who work with such dedication and commitment in this arena.

  I want to tell a constituent’s story that shows that, yes, the NHS does in part provide extremely good care, but also that it requires more rigour. I received a letter from a constituent whose daughter lost a baby at 20 weeks. She had had excellent care from the gynaecological consultant and the hospital staff, who treated the loss very sensitively, but there were failures in her care. My constituent writes:

  “Unfortunately the symptoms leading to the loss of the baby occurred at a weekend. Protocols about sending her straight to the gynae department were not followed. (There was a chance that the pregnancy might have been saved). Nor were other protocols, so that, for instance her midwife hadn’t been informed and rang up”—

  that must have been some time later—

  “asking why antenatal appointments hadn’t been kept. It took a year for my daughter to get the specialist follow-up counselling that should have been offered immediately and she didn’t know she was entitled to some maternity leave.”

  That shows, as my constituent says, that there was a “lack of joined-up communication” between different physicians, who were there to assist her daughter. I understand that hospitals in the area are improving the training of staff and support for bereaved parents, but that happened in a large city. In this day and age, that care should have been better. I pay tribute to that young lady because she is setting up a new branch of Sands in her area. It has been wonderful to hear today of the personal experiences of so many Members who, in the course of assisting others, will relive them time and again and put their energies into such organisations.

  Stillbirth is a taboo subject but, thanks to this debate, decreasingly so. Stillbirths affect the whole family and, as my constituent says, the

  “wider social and work contact groups…Mothers losing babies suffer grief compounded by feelings of guilt and inadequacy”

  and

  “suffer hormonal effects whilst still trying to hold down jobs. I myself”—

  she is the mother of a daughter who lost a child—

  “have found this time emotionally very hard…Surely with more openness and appropriate training of staff our country’s shameful record of stillbirths could be improved. Mental health of bereaved mothers would be improved, resulting in less cost and burden to our health services…my daughter had an undiagnosed streptococcus infection. If screening for this during pregnancy were introduced less babies would be lost.”

  I therefore support other Members who have called for better screening.

  As an adjunct to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who mentioned smoking and obesity advice for mothers during pregnancy, may I, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, ask that advice on drinking alcohol during pregnancy is added? The chief medical officer recommended earlier this year that the best advice is simply not to drink alcohol during pregnancy because, as the all-party group has heard, different mothers respond to different levels of alcohol very differently. There has been inadequate publicity regarding that clear recommendation, which I welcome because it clears up decades of confusing advice.​

  I should like to add my support for one or two points that have been mentioned. Finally, I want to mention one other issue that is still a taboo that we must bravely address and endeavour to break in this country. A quarter of a million miscarriages occur every year. As I have said, it is not only the mothers who feel the loss and grieve and mourn when a miscarriage occurs, but fathers, grandparents and the wider family. They need help too.

  Statistics cannot compare with the power of personal experiences such as those we have heard today, but to frame some of the problems encountered by women who miscarry, I have a Miscarriage Association survey of 300 women. Forty-five per cent. of the women surveyed said that they did not feel well informed about what was happening to them physically; only 29% felt well cared for emotionally; and nearly four out of five—79%—received no aftercare at all. The association has noted that access to information and emotional support has been shown time and again to help people to cope with the experience of loss, but that we need to make such support available later if needed. The association has also noted that what was said to grieving women and men was not always important; it was just enough that someone was listening. By having this debate and hearing so many individual experiences, I hope the House has shown to the nation that we are listening and that we care.

  Another issue that has been raised is how unborn children are treated before the 24-week stage. As we have heard, when a woman has had a miscarriage, she can be in an extremely vulnerable state. As my constituent has said, women are often not in hospital—in fact, only 18% of miscarriages occur in hospital. As such, a mother is likely to ring up the hospital for advice on what to do, particularly to ask what they should do with the miscarried child. It is of grave concern that there appear to be no strict guidelines on how to advise women in such circumstances.

  Zoe Clarke-Coates of the Mariposa Trust, an organisation set up to assist those who have experienced baby loss, has told my office recently that she regularly receives calls from women who have been advised to flush the miscarried foetus down the toilet or put it in a jar in the fridge. That is extremely distressing and traumatising for families. Some women have had to buy new fridges afterwards because it has upset them so much.

  Hospital mortuaries need to be available for the foetuses for the unborn child to be properly taken to and stored at the request of parents. The staff who take those calls need to have training across the board to be aware of that. Mortuaries need to be open seven days a week for that purpose and it is important that a directive driven by the Government is given to that effect, and that it is not left to trusts to set up their own systems, which has clearly been completely unsatisfactory to date.

• Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

   

   
  The issue of stillbirths has been raised, with people having to be on wards with celebrating families. Another problem is that women who have suffered miscarriage use the same early-care pregnancy unit. When I had a miscarriage at 16 weeks, I had to sit next to women who had scan photographs. It was very difficult. That must be considered more seriously by medical staff.
​

• Fiona Bruce

   

   
  The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. It is vital that we support women in appropriate settings for their situation. As other Members have mentioned, for women who have lost their babies inside the womb but need to go through labour, separate wards should be a priority. They might need to be in hospital for several days. To hear other women around them with their babies must be very distressing. Hospitals need to create better spaces for women at all stages in their pregnancies in such situations.

• Victoria Prentis

   

   
  With your permission Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to share my own experience. As I told the House earlier, I was in hospital for a considerable time because I had been very ill. After I was in intensive care, I was put in a post-natal ward with people with babies. I was in a separate room, but I had to share the bathroom, the midwives and all the other staff, with mothers of live babies. I found it terribly difficult when nice people who had not been told, who were bringing me cups of tea, food and all sorts of care, repeatedly asked me where my baby was. That was so distressing.

• Fiona Bruce

   

   
  My heart goes out to my hon. Friend. The compounding of grief in that way is so unnecessary.

  Families who have lost babies have spoken about the importance of acknowledging their child’s life. Unfortunately, this is an area where the law adds to distress. Under current UK law, a baby is effectively only considered a person at 24 weeks. This often means that that acknowledgement is not there as it could be. I have even heard of parents lying about the gestation period in order to try to obtain a birth certificate. Alongside other hon. Members, I appeal to Ministers to look again at this. As modern technologies improve, unborn babies are increasingly viable earlier than 24 weeks. The law should move not only with technology, but compassion. I ask Ministers to look at that, too.

  There is one last point I would like to mention. It is very sensitive, but I feel I need to mention it. It is the taboo I mentioned earlier, but as one colleague said, if there is one thing we can do in this House it is break taboos. Parents can also suffer a deep sense of loss and bereavement when their longed-for child is not lost during pregnancy due to a miscarriage or stillborn, but due to a disability being diagnosed while their child is in the womb, leading them to have to make the often heart-rending decision to have a termination, sometimes late in pregnancy. There is little, if any, bereavement support or adequate counselling for such parents either before they make that decision or sometime after, yet they too have lost a much-loved child.

  In 2013, the all-party pro-life group conducted a detailed, year-long inquiry into abortion on the grounds of disability. I have a copy here with me today. We were repeatedly told by witnesses about the lack of proper counselling and bereavement care for such parents should they want it, which many do. We were also told of some examples of very good practice. One parent told us that they had had a funeral service, which helped enormously. Another told of how they were able to bathe their child before the child was appropriately cared for following the termination. Other witnesses were amazed that this kind of care was available, because they had received none at all. One of our report’s key recommendations was that appropriate bereavement support and counselling should be available for all parents who want it in such situations, even if it is some time later.​

  I regret to say—I am following slightly in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) who spoke earlier about an uphill struggle—that I have had an uphill struggle in trying to gain the attention of the Department of Health on this issue. I thank hon. Members who have raised their losses in this debate. I hope now that the Department will consider it. Our report was issued in 2013. After the deeply moving Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester, I spoke with the then Minister responding to that debate. We agreed that I would send the report to the Department of Health after the debate, which I did. Unfortunately, I received no reply. I sent a reminder some time later. Again, I received no reply. I hope that as a result of today’s debate, the Department of Health will take seriously the additional point that parents in this situation need the same kind of care and support as the others who have been spoken about in this debate today.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)

 

 Share this contribution

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). He and I often have many common concerns at heart, and I echo a number of the points he has made today. I hope that Ministers will note that similar points are being made across the House today. Before saying anything more, I will follow the proper example set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) by declaring my interests. Not only am I patron of a number of charities, but I am still the senior partner in a law firm that for over 25 years has had charity law as one of its specialisms.

Like many other Members who have spoken, I served on the Committee that scrutinised the Small Charitable Donations Bill in 2012, so I welcome the amendments set out in this Bill to make the donations scheme more effectively and flexibly for small charities, particularly new charities, and also to make it simpler. One reason I particularly welcome anything that makes running a charity simpler is that over the years I have had many clients in my law firm who have a brilliant idea for setting up a small charity but find it increasingly difficult to recruit people as officers, and particularly for the role of treasurer. I very much welcome anything that makes being the treasurer of a small charity easier.

The term “small charities” is something of a misnomer, because often it is those charities that pack the biggest punches. For example, there are a number of charities in my constituency who work to improve the local environment, and the extent of their contribution to local people’s enjoyment of that environment is staggering. I think of the Sandbach Woodland and Wildlife Group and Dane Valley Woods. Those two groups alone have ​improved acres of local countryside, public footpaths and areas for local people to enjoy. I also think of the friends of a number of railway stations in my constituency, such as Alsager station, Congleton station, Sandbach station and Goostrey station. Those groups are often the unsung heroes of our communities, yet they add so much to the enjoyment of our environment.

I also welcome the inclusion of community amateur sports clubs in the Bill, because their contribution to our communities can be substantial. They of course contribute to health and wellbeing, but they also strengthen community ties and foster a sense of belonging, particularly for children. I want to pay tribute to three clubs in my constituency, Triton hockey club, AFC Alsager and Alsager cricket club. They have been at the forefront of a successful campaign over several years to ensure that the former site of Manchester Metropolitan University in Alsager is reopened for use as a community sports facility. It is their dedication over many years, combined with their understanding of the community’s sporting needs and their contribution to encouraging literally thousands of young people to take up sport that has ensured the recent success of that campaign. I pay particular tribute to those groups this evening.

I welcome the Bill because, according to the Government’s figures, the take-up of the scheme we debated and then brought forward under the Small Charitable Donations Act in 2012 has been regrettably low—far beneath hoped-for levels, as has been said. In 2014-15, the Government budgeted £84 million for the scheme, but the actual spend was £21 million, which was a clear shortfall. The number of charities accessing the scheme was just under 20,000, far fewer than the 65,000 we would have expected if the £84 million spend had been achieved. I therefore very much welcome the Bill’s intention to increase take-up by simplifying the eligibility criteria, but I ask the Government to ensure that there is some real and effective promotion of the scheme once the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be.

I echo other Members’ requests that the Government look again at simply dropping the matching criteria—again, a most effective method of increasing uptake. As has been said, the eligibility requirements could be simplified to make them the same as those for gift aid, so that if the charity knows it is eligible for gift aid, it will be eligible to gain access to funds from the scheme. I understand that there have been concerns about fraud, which the Minister has expressed, but, again, I concur with other Members and ask what evidence there is of that. I am told by charities that there is actually little, if any, evidence that fraud has been a problem with the scheme or that the matching criteria have been effective at highlighting those intent on making fraudulent claims. Will Ministers review the issue, and provide any evidence in Committee? Alternatively, will they look at whether fraud is in reality a barrier to consideration of dropping the matching criteria altogether?

I draw the attention of the House to a joint survey by a number of groups. The Association of Independent Museums, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Small Charities Coalition surveyed more than 340 charities across a range of sizes, from those with fewer than 10 employees to those with more than 500. They found that the take-up of the current scheme in percentage terms was, as we would expect, ​and as Members have indicated, far higher in very large organisations than in very small ones; in fact, it was 71% in large organisations, compared with 41% in smaller ones. While the sample was small, there is a clear indication that organisations at the smaller end of the spectrum use the scheme less frequently, so anything that can be done to assist them to access it is to be welcomed.

The charities were also polled on accessing information about the scheme. Some 22% of medium-sized organisations said they found it difficult to access information, and 26% of small organisations found it difficult or very difficult, but 41% of very small charities found it difficult or very difficult. That goes to show how important it is that the Government focus on the promotion of the scheme. Many survey respondents were still unaware of the scheme or that they could be eligible. It would be a far simpler message to charities if we simply said, “If you are registered for gift aid, you are eligible for the scheme.”

Let me touch on the issue of cheques. I concur with other Members and ask that the Government consider making small cheque donations, as well as contactless payments and cash donations, eligible for the scheme. I welcome the contactless payment proposal, but many donors—particularly elderly ones—still write cheques for £10 or £20. The logic behind allowing cheques to be included in the scheme is very similar to that for allowing contactless or small cash donations—namely, that it can be administratively burdensome to get declarations from cheque donors, particularly if those donations are irregular and small charities do not have the resources to chase up donors. Making such a change will arguably help small charities even more than allowing contactless payments to be included, because contactless technology is expensive. Small and local charities, perhaps set up by someone who has retired, may not possess the technical capability to process contactless payments, while they might very well receive a good number of cheques.

In conclusion, I suspect that most of my points are not novel—many have been raised this evening, or were raised with the Government during their consultation—but I hope it will be helpful for the House, and indeed for the thousands of charities in the country, if further reflection on such issues is conducted as the Bill travels through the House.

Forced Organ Removal: China

• Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)

  
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and his powerful speech.

  Let us be clear about what we are speaking of here, because if what we are discussing is indeed the case it virtually defies credibility. But increasingly research and evidence is pointing towards what is being alleged, which is that the Chinese Government actively condone—indeed, are involved in—the murder of potentially thousands of their own citizens every year for the purpose of forcibly extracting vital organs including livers, kidneys, hearts and corneas, sometimes while those people are still alive, and without anaesthetic. Many of those people are in prison, mainly—we are told—for their beliefs or ethnicity. Often their families are told that they have died. They are young people in reasonable health, and their families are simply handed an urn of ashes.

  Credible research findings strongly suggest that many thousands of people are being killed for their organs, particularly people in minority groups, most notably practitioners of Falun Gong—a peaceful, meditative practice—although Tibetans, Uighurs and, potentially, house Christians have also been targeted for political reasons.

  The allegations that Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans and Uighurs have been victims of that horrific practice are well documented and strong, as I shall recount. The suggestion that house church Christians may be affected requires further research. Either way, all the allegations of which we are now aware are sufficiently strong to require investigation by the international community.

  It is of the highest necessity that the UK raises the issue with the Chinese directly, and calls for an international inquiry into the matter, ideally led by the United Nations. Even if the UN will not conduct a commission of inquiry, our Government should investigate the allegations and look at alternative mechanisms to bring to account those involved in those horrific alleged practices. If Britain as a nation is to maintain its status as a people concerned about grievous violations of human rights, it is imperative that the issue is addressed loudly and fearlessly, in co-operation with the other international organisations and leading parliamentarians across the world who are increasingly expressing concerns about the issue.

  The Conservative party human rights commission, which I am privileged to chair, has recently conducted an inquiry into forced organ harvesting in China. During the course of the inquiry, I have been privileged to hear, in this House, first-hand testimony of those who have conducted research into the nature of the crime, and first-hand testimony by way of a powerful statement ​from a former Chinese doctor, Dr Enver Tohti, who has been required to perform an organ operation on an executed prisoner—for transplant, he believes.

  The House has been privileged to host the UK premiere of the film “The Bleeding Edge”, a fictional film based on the testimony of witnesses to illegal organ harvesting. It was harrowing. I am deeply grateful to Mr Speaker for hosting the film, and to the actress, Anastasia Lin, who starred in the film and gave evidence at one of the hearings of the Conservative party human rights commission. I am aware of other films on the subject, notably “Human Harvest” and “Hard to Believe”.

  As I speak, the Conservative party human rights commission is releasing a report of the inquiry, which can be found on the website www.conservativehumanrights.com. It contains more information than I can relay in this debate, but I will refer to some evidence received by the inquiry. The report was written by the vice-chair of the commission, Ben Rogers, who is an expert on human rights in China and elsewhere. I pay tribute to him for his dedicated work in this field and to the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the organisation for which he works.

  Written evidence submitted to the inquiry included a statement from a former prisoner, Yu Xinhui, who wrote:

  “Everyone in the prison knows about this”—

  by which he means the removal of prisoners for organ harvesting.

  “Usually in the prison, regardless of whether the person is deceased, if he is sent to the prison hospital, he faces the reality of having his organs removed at any moment. Everyone in prison knows that there exists a list of names. People…taken away, and no one will return.”

  That list of names includes blood types and the health of patients’ organs so that the information is ready and available if a transplant request is made.

  Yu Xinhui continued:

  “I once asked a prison doctor, because this particular doctor was very sympathetic to us Falun Gong practitioners. He was especially sympathetic towards me, because we were from the same hometown. Once he told me secretly, saying, ‘Don’t go against the Communist Party. Don’t resist them. Whatever they tell you to do, just do it. Don’t go against them forcefully. If you do, then when the time comes, you won’t even know how you will have died. When it happens, where your heart, liver, spleen, and lungs will be taken, you won’t even know either.’”

  Yu Xinhui had three physical examinations while in prison, the last of which was in March 2005. Many former prisoners of conscience have testified to having been subjected to physical examinations while in prison that went beyond normal medical check-ups and were clearly aimed at assessing the health of their organs.

  The timing of this debate is apt, given new evidence that the scale of organ harvesting in China may now be far higher than previously estimated. The evidence has built to a point where ignoring it is not an option. There is now strong, academically well-researched information that between 50,000 to 90,000 organ transplants may occur in China every year and are, effectively, concealed by the Government. That is in a country where there is no tradition of organ donation. Indeed, Chinese official ​figures put the number of voluntary donations at a total of 120 for the entire 30-year period between 1980 and 2009.

  Let me quote further from the Conservative party human rights commission’s report:

  “Although there are a variety of sources of evidence, there are three key reports which provide detailed research into the practice of forced organ harvesting in China”—

  the hon. Member for Strangford referred to those reports. Our report continues:

  “The first, published on the Internet in 2006 and in print in 2009, was a report researched and written by the former Canadian Member of Parliament and former Government Minister David Kilgour and a respected human rights lawyer, David Matas, called Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their organs. The second was Ethan Gutmann’s book The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to its Dissident Problem, published in 2014.”

  Both David Matas and Ethan Gutmann have given evidence to our commission. The third report, which was published this year, runs to 700 pages. It updates forensically those two pieces of research, is co-authored by David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann, and is entitled, “Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update.” I have heard Ethan Gutmann publicly invite from anyone, particularly from the Chinese, any evidence or comments that contradict the research in the report, but as of September 2016 none have been received.

  The most important point made by the report, and indeed by David Matas and Ethan Gutmann in their evidence to the Conservative party human rights commission, is that the scale of forced organ harvesting in China is significantly underestimated. Their new research is forensic—they have inquired into the public records of no fewer than 712 hospitals in China that carry out liver and kidney transplants. Their detailed research leads them to conclude that potentially between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted each year in Chinese hospitals, which almost defies credibility. If those figures are correct, organs are being transplanted on an industrial scale, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. One hospital alone, the Orient organ transplant centre at the Tianjin first central hospital, is performing thousands of transplants a year according to its own bed occupancy data. Chinese official claims state that 10,000 organ transplants are carried out each year, but the authors of the report contend that that is

  “easily surpassed by just a few hospitals.”

  By way of background, according to Ethan the practice of forced organ harvesting began in China as long ago as 1994, when the first live organs were removed from death row prisoners on the execution grounds of Xinjiang. Dr Enver Tohti came to London to give evidence to us, and he told us about the process. He was a cancer surgeon in Ürümqi, Xinjiang province. In 1995, while he was simply doing his job, he was instructed by two of his hospital’s chief surgeons to prepare mobile surgery equipment—in other words, an ambulance—and to wait for them the next day at a hospital gate with the ambulance, the equipment and three other assistants. The following morning, at 9 am, the two chief surgeons arrived in a car and he was told to follow them. He did not know where he was going but, about half an hour later, they arrived at Western Mountain—Xishan—an ​execution ground where prisoners were taken to be executed. He described what happened:

  “We had been told to wait behind a hill, and come into the field as soon as we’d hear the gun shot. So we waited. A moment later there were gun shots. Not one, but many. We rushed into the field. An armed police officer approached us and told me where to go. He led us closer, then pointed to a corpse saying ‘this is the one’.”

  A few prisoners had been executed. He continued:

  “By then our chief surgeon appeared from nowhere and told me to remove the liver and two kidneys. He urged me to hurry up, so we took the body into the van and removed his liver and kidneys…our chief surgeons put those organs in a special box, and got into the car. They told me to take my team back to the hospital and left. I have no idea where they went… That was the end of that. Nobody has ever talked about what we did that day. It is something I wish hadn’t happened.”

  Not only is the scale of the numbers a concern; the speed at which Chinese hospitals can obtain organs is also highly suspect. Doctors will tell us that the time they have to get an organ from a donor to a recipient varies but that it is very short for sensitive vital organs. A heart or a liver cannot simply be saved in a freezer until it is needed, which is why the NHS states that in this country the average wait for a suitable transplant for an adult is 145 days—of course, we are in a country with a tradition of donation. Compare that with the many statements in Chinese medical publications that they can find an emergency liver donor within 24 hours. I understand there is even a medical journal that boasts of taking only four hours to find a donor. I am informed that the Chinese Government claim that the organs come from death row prisoners who have been executed locally to the hospital that is providing the transplant, but the coincidence of that number of prisoners happening to have, say, a healthy liver, happening to match the blood type of the recipient and happening to have been executed locally is simply too much for credibility given the numbers involved. An alternative interpretation, and sadly the one that is more credible, is that people are being killed on demand to supply their organs.

  In the other place, Lord Alton has been assured by the Government that the issue has been raised with the Chinese Government as part of the annual UK-China human rights dialogue and will be raised again, for which I thank the Government. However, evidence suggests that the Chinese Government have repeatedly committed themselves to denial, obfuscation and misdirection on this issue. It is therefore appropriate that we increase our activity in light of the new evidence I have highlighted. Indeed, there is growing international pressure on this matter.

  The UN special rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of religion or belief have both requested that the Chinese Government explain the sources of these organs and that they allow them to investigate. There has been no response. The European Parliament adopted a written declaration in July 2016 on stopping organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China that, among other clauses, states:

  “There have been persistent credible reports on systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, primarily from practitioners of Falun Gong peaceful meditation and exercises but also from Uighurs, Tibetans and Christians.

  The international community has strongly condemned organ harvesting in China and actions should be taken to end it.​

  Owing to the severity of underlying abuse there is a clear need to organise without delay an independent investigation into ongoing organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China.”

  Similarly, the United States Congress unanimously passed a resolution in June 2016 condemning the practice of state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China. The resolution calls for visas to be denied to those involved in coerced organ or tissue transplantation. It expresses

  “concern regarding persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, including from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups.”

  The concerns in America are coming from leading Congressmen and Senators. I was privileged to meet Congressman Chris Smith in Washington DC last week. He is the fourth longest-serving member of Congress and is a remarkable campaigner for human rights across the world. He spoke at a joint sub-committee of the US committee on foreign affairs on 21 June. I will quote him at more length at the end of my speech if I have time, but he told the House of Representatives:

  “Twenty years ago, I chaired a human rights hearing in my subcommittee with a Chinese security official who testified that he and his other security agents were executing prisoners—with doctors…there and ambulances—in order to steal their organs for transplant. Since then, this horrific practice has skyrocketed.”

  The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China published its annual report less than two weeks ago; I was privileged to meet the group of young people who work for the commission and who produced the report. The commission’s chairman said:

  “The Chinese government’s human rights record is utterly deplorable, continuing a downward trend over the past three years.”

  That, of course, includes organ harvesting.

• Jim Shannon

  
  

   
  I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for setting the scene. Clearly the world is awakening to what is happening in China; she is as aware of that as I am. Will the awakening that we seem to see in Canada, in the States and now in the United Kingdom precipitate a need for our Government to contact the Chinese authorities to ensure that they can respond now to stop this practice? The weight of evidence is growing every day.

• Fiona Bruce

  
  

   
  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The growing international concern about organ harvesting means it is vital that this country joins in and does not lag behind the international community in condemning these practices and challenging the Chinese Government accordingly.

  I have two more things to say. First, as well as politicians acting, the international medical community must do detailed analysis of the claims made by these respected researchers. It is helpful to note that the president of the Transplantation Society, Dr Philip O’Connell, said at the society’s international conference in Hong Kong this year, addressing his comments to China, that

  “there remains, in many sectors, a deep sense of mistrust of your transplant programs…It is important that you understand that the global community”—

  I believe he was referring to the global medical community—

  “is appalled by the practices”.
​

• Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

  
  

   
  My hon. Friend makes several important points. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed, first, whether there is a date for the next annual human rights dialogue, and if so when it is; secondly, when the next UK Government report on human rights to the UN in Geneva is due; and thirdly whether there has been any response to the request by the Foreign Office Minister in the Lords for more information from the Chinese authorities about their response to the various accusations?

• Fiona Bruce

  
  
  I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as it comes from the chair of the all-party group on China, whose views are very much respected in this House. His questions to the Minister today are very well placed.

  Yesterday evening I tabled early-day motion 502, “Forced organ harvesting in China”. I ask colleagues to be good enough to sign and support the motion. I shall read it out in full for the record, because it contains my request to the Minister today:

  “That this House notes with grave concern allegations of forced organ harvesting in China; further notes that victims said to be targeted for forced organ extraction are prisoners of conscience; acknowledges evidence detailed in Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update, by former Canadian Member of Parliament David Kilgour, lawyer David Matas and researcher Ethan Gutmann, along with other reports; notes the recent United States House of Representatives resolution 343 on forced organ harvesting in China and European Parliament written declaration 2016/WD48; calls on China to immediately end any forced organ harvesting; urges the Government to condemn forced organ harvesting and to seek a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate this practice, or conduct an inquiry through other international mechanisms, to ensure accountability and to assess whether this practice could amount to a crime against humanity; further urges the Government to release statistics on the numbers of UK citizens travelling to China for organ transplants and prohibit British citizens from travelling to China for the purpose of receiving organ transplants; urges the Government to introduce a travel ban prohibiting medical personnel and officials who may be engaged in forced organ harvesting from travelling to the UK; and calls on the Government to give urgent consideration to other measures it could take to hold China to account for this practice and demand an end to it.”

  I will finish by quoting the senior US Congressman Chris Smith:

  “What adjectives do we use to describe what Chinese doctors and hospitals have been doing these past decades? Ordinary words like concerned, disturbed or shocking just seem inadequate. We tend to reserve words like ‘barbaric’ for truly horrible crimes—and…we must call organ harvesting…barbaric.”

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)

 

 Share this contribution

I welcome this Bill. The importance it places on neighbourhood plans validates the extremely hard and challenging work that so many of my constituents in the village of Brereton and the town of Sandbach have undertaken, in some cases over years, to develop neighbourhood plans and have them adopted. I congratulate them. Other areas in my constituency are working on their neighbourhood plans, which are vital in a constituency with distinct and individual local communities, lying as it does in a relatively large unitary council, Cheshire East, which stretches from the fringe of Greater Manchester down towards Shropshire. If localism is to mean anything, it is important that the people who live in such towns and villages have a real say in the development of their communities.

Does this Bill go far enough? I want to challenge the Minister in one or two ways.

I am pleased to hear the Minister say that neighbourhood plans will be given “proper consideration” in the planning process, that “due weight” will be given to them and that they will have full effect. However, will he clarify precisely what that means where a large principal authority still has no local plan and no agreed housing supply numbers? My constituents who have gone to the trouble of preparing neighbourhood plans are asking whether, if there is no local plan and no agreed housing supply number, their plans should have the status and strength of a local plan when planning decisions are being made. That is the critical question.

Without that reassurance, my constituents—particularly those in Sandbach, who are besieged by developers and who have gone far beyond making what I believe is a reasonable contribution to housing numbers in the Cheshire East area—are saying they are becoming “very disillusioned” with the neighbourhood planning process. They quote a recent planning decision in September with respect to an area of land in Sandbach. The inspector acknowledged that the Sandbach neighbourhood plan had been adopted, but said he would not examine the application in the light of that plan. Instead, he set it against the as-yet unadopted local plan with the housing supply number as yet not agreed, which relates to the whole Cheshire East area. According to my constituents, the inspector seems to be saying that the neighbourhood plan is “an irrelevance”. Will the Minister look again at strengthening the authority of neighbourhood plans where there is no completed local plan and no ​agreed five-year land supply, and declare that the neighbourhood plan has the weight of a local plan where there is no such plan in place?

My constituents have been encouraged by three recent appeal decisions to the Secretary of State in East Sussex, West Sussex and Bath. The Secretary of State cited local plans in the appeals and prevented developments, highlighting neighbourhood plans as a key factor in his decision. I thank the Minister for that and hope that it indicates a trend of thinking in this area.

I support the references that have been made to land banking, or, as I refer to it, permission banking. The former mayor of Sandbach, Mike Benson, wrote to me saying:

“During the Public Inquiries held in Sandbach…Cheshire East’s Head of Planning Strategy…gave evidence that in some parts of the Borough, planning permissions granted over the last 5 years”

had resulted in not one house being built in those locations. Nevertheless, appeals continue to be allowed across Cheshire East on the basis that Cheshire East Council does not have a five-year housing supply. He says:

“What would be fairer is a formula which regards the granting of permissions as the determining factor, not the number of houses actually being built.”

Will the Minister consider that as the Bill progresses? Will he also consider the fact that it is very important to ensure we balance the need for housing with the need for employment land? Businessmen in Congleton tell me that they need more employment land. We cannot afford to have our communities turned into vast commuter belts, because there are simply not the jobs for local people to work in.

I have two final points. First, it is quite clear that in some cases where developments are occurring, for example in Congleton where 4,000 houses are projected to be built in the draft local plan, we will need extra health facilities. However, Cheshire East Council officers have contacted Public Health England, which has been unable to identify any community infrastructure levy-compliant projects to which contributions could be sought for development. It is very important that the Minister liaises with his counterparts in the Department of Health to ensure that health provision projects that can be used for community infrastructure funding are in place.

If I may stretch your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to add one further point, which relates to an issue I have been asked to raise by Cheshire East Council on the importance of guiding developments so that they avoid the most sensitive locations. I refer to a recent decision by the Court of Appeal that renders protective policies, such as green belt, green gap, wildlife conservation and Jodrell Bank safeguarding, which is critical in my constituency, as similar to “housing supply policies”. If a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing, then such housing supply policies are deemed out of date, carrying much less weight.

I have an appeal going through now to the Secretary of State for a large development near Jodrell Bank. Jodrell Bank is concerned that having many more houses in the area will interfere with its instruments. It is a critical, individual, specific issue, and that area needs ​protection. It is important that that protection is not weakened if the council is unable to resist housing in unsuitable locations. Will the Minister clarify that the Bill will ensure that such sensitive designations will not be overridden and developers’ appeals will not be allowed? Will he confirm that that will be embodied as an amendment to the NPPF?