Abortion in Northern Ireland

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Peter Bottomley

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s consistent position on this, the strength of feeling on this issue and the contributions she has made in previous debates and conversations in this House, and indeed in the conversations she has had with me and with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).

It is important to be clear that Parliament stepped in. Parliament placed me under this legal obligation during a period of no functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Even though the Executive and the Assembly have now been in place for more than a year, those legal duties do not fall, and have not fallen, away.

I appreciate the points the hon. Lady made about comparisons with payments to victims, but I should point out that that matter is being progressed by the Executive; it is being delivered on, that scheme will open shortly and victims will be paid. I share the frustration of a number of Members in this House that the Department of Finance and the Executive have not yet allocated the moneys that the Department of Justice needs to move forward with that, and I hope that they will move on with that. However, that scheme is actually being progressed by the Executive, and the victims will be able to apply shortly.

We have been clear, and we have conveyed the message to the Health Minister and his Department throughout, that it is crucial that abortion, as a fundamental healthcare service, is delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health. That ensures that it is delivered in a sustainable way and becomes embedded in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland in the long term.

I fully appreciate that abortion is an extremely emotive subject, but we must not lose sight of the women and girls in Northern Ireland who are absolutely at the heart of this matter. It is unacceptable that there are women and girls in part of the UK who cannot access these fundamental rights, as they can elsewhere in the UK. Even though the law was changed some 12 months ago, services have not been commissioned yet, and that leaves many women and girls in vulnerable positions.

I have spoken to many women and healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland, and some of their experiences are truly harrowing. Too many women and girls are still having to travel to other parts of the UK—to mainland Great Britain—to access this care. One story was of a much-wanted pregnancy where, sadly, doctors informed the mother that the baby would not survive outside the womb. This woman had to travel to London, without her network of family support, to access healthcare. She described to me a harrowing ordeal, where she was unable to travel back on a flight to her home because of complications and bleeding. She was stranded in London, alone, grieving and in pain. I have been informed of two other women who have attempted suicide in the past year after their flights were cancelled and so they were unable to travel to England for proper care.

The distress and unacceptable circumstances that women and girls continue to face at a time when local access should be readily available, given that the law changed more than a year ago, is unacceptable. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland are able to make individual informed decisions with proper patient care, the provision of information and support from medical professionals, based on their own health and wider circumstances—similar to women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have used every opportunity and avenue to encourage progress and offer our support over the past year. That is why I am so disappointed that we have reached this impasse.

We take this step now to further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that women and girls can safely access services in Northern Ireland. Our priority is to ensure that the Department of Health takes responsibility for commissioning full services, consistent with the conditions set out in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. That is why we are moving forward in this way. While Parliament considers the regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try to find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is given.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]]

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has done the House a service by raising this issue. Her predecessor gave the House his advice on relationships before he left.

The choice is between compassion and politics. I put it to the Secretary of State that the key point is this: if there is going to be an abortion, it should be legal, safe, early and local. There has been too much delay. Let us put first the interests of women and girls. Going south or coming east is not the answer. Let us get on with it. I hope he understands he will have support from most people in Northern Ireland.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that people are getting access to the right healthcare. It is a legal obligation on us following the Parliament vote, but he is right that we need to make sure people get the right healthcare at the right time and in the right way, and do not have to go through the challenges they face at the moment.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Peter Bottomley

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

I will come in a second to how the police should be dealing with those issues and going about their investigations, but, in terms of something happening whereby a member of the force sees something is wrong, in the first instance we should have a police service in which any member within it has the ability and confidence to come forward to the hierarchy of that service with a complaint and an outline of where things are going wrong. However, going beyond that and realising that we live in the real world and that in some hierarchical organisations, no matter how much we want it to be different, people feel that they cannot do that, in the Policing and Crime Bill that is going through Parliament we are giving more power to the Independent Police Complaints Commission so that it can take things up directly to give better protection to whistleblowers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and then deal with both issues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Minister is helping the debate, but may I pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)? Rather than having to go to the extreme of whistleblowing and making a formal complaint, why cannot someone say to their leading officer, “What on earth are we doing? Who told you to do this? Why are we doing it? Explain it.” I can do that with my Whips. Why cannot they do that with their inspectors?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure that the members of the Government Whips Office will be delighted to hear that my hon. Friend feels rightly confident in having that conversation with them. He is right; that is exactly what should happen. However, through the Policing and Crime Bill we are trying to recognise that from time to time, as much as I wish it were not the case, there may be an officer who feels for whatever reason that they cannot go down that route and effectively act as a whistleblower. I will come on to how that should be handled going forward in more detail in just a few moments.

I will turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate, but hon. Members will be aware that I cannot comment in detail on some of the specifics of Operation Midland, or indeed on individual cases associated with it. It is inappropriate for the Government to comment on operational matters such as those. Additionally, I am sure hon. Members are aware that action is being taken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which I will outline, as a result of some of the failings identified in the review.

Five Metropolitan Police Service officers, ranging from a detective sergeant through to a deputy assistant commissioner, have been referred to the IPCC. Indeed, the individual who originally made the allegations that Operation Midland focused on is also being investigated by an outside force for attempting to pervert the course of justice. To that end, I hope the House appreciates that I am constrained by various ongoing proceedings, but I am happy to continue and to outline some further wide-ranging points.

On the publication of the report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred in his opening remarks, I believe that there should be a presumption in favour of transparency in a situation like this. It is to the commissioner’s credit that he commissioned this report, and I will discuss his plans for publishing it when I see him next week. There is a balance to be found between considering any legal implications of sensitive and confidential material in the report and publishing that material, which is an issue I know the commissioner has to look at. I will discuss that with him next week. In the first instance, we and the Metropolitan police should look to be as transparent as possible.

I understand the views of Sir Richard Henriques and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on whether the police should “believe” all victims. I cannot be clearer on the matter than by reiterating the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then the Home Secretary. She said that the police should focus on the credibility of the allegation, rather than on the credibility of the witness or victim. That has to be right, but as was said earlier, it works both ways in terms of how the police deal with these issues.

The position of the National Police Chiefs Council—I spoke to Simon Bailey about this earlier today—is that officers and staff must approach any investigation without fear or favour, and must go where the evidence takes them. I understand that Simon Bailey clearly made the point to Sir Richard Henriques, as he was putting together his report that outlined how many claimants’ allegations tend to be baseless, that once the victim has come forward, that case and its investigation must be undertaken without fear or favour to get to the bottom of whether that allegation is correct. If it is, it should quite rightly be followed through to its finality, which the police are required to do by the code of practice of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

The evidence of the victim is just one part of an investigation; “believing” victims, or even referring to them as such at the point of disclosure when recording the crime, as opposed to complainants, should not and must not interfere with that. However, we need a system under which people who believe they are a victim feel confident and free enough to come forward in the first place. I am sure we all wish to see that continue. As with the rest of Sir Richard’s recommendations, I know that the Metropolitan police, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council are looking closely and carefully at that, as they must, in order to respond fully.

Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Peter Bottomley

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Minister rightly refers to the CentreForum report, which I think is one of the best reports produced in the past few years. Although the Minister uses its estimate, I think it would now accept that the census data mean that there are twice as many people involved. It may be possible for us to come to an agreement on what the numbers are—though not necessarily today—but we should try to use a figure that is more likely to be right.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The reality is that, with every day that passes—certainly with every month that passes—the number of people accessing the market is likely to grow. That highlights the importance of the Bill. It appears, on the face of it, to be short and simple, but it is actually an example of the way in which Parliament sometimes has the ability to make a beneficial difference to people’s lives.

Leaseholds can be complex and problematic—hence the Bill. That is primarily because this is a sector in which a wide range of different interests—financial and otherwise—exist in the same property, which inevitably creates scope for conflict. Ultimately, this relates to people’s homes, an issue towards which we naturally have strong feelings of protection. I assure the House that I am aware of the range of issues that can arise, and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for housing, will be listening carefully to any concerns.

I thank members of the Committee who considered the Bill in December. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) for chairing the Committee and presiding over a short but good-natured and constructive debate. Given the speed with which the Bill has progressed, it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North has said, to put on record the intent, purpose and detail behind it so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West has said, we do our bit to ensure that in future there are no further issues of interpretation with which a court might struggle.

It is a particular pleasure at this Friday morning sitting to welcome the cross-party support provided by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), for which I thank him. I am pleased that, on the day of the Committee sitting, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods)—who, as I understand it, stepped in at short notice—also gave cross-party support. I thank her for helping the Bill progress.

I endorse the tribute given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to the late right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, who was a member of the Bill Committee, which sat shortly before the Christmas recess. He is sorely missed by the House.

I am pleased to say that the Government fully support the Bill and will continue to do so as it goes to the other place, where I hope it will get a fair wind. As my hon. Friend has said, responsibility for it will pass into the hands of my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford. I am confident that she will win wide support and sympathy for the Bill and steer it safely through the other place.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Kettering are also to be congratulated on ensuring that the Bill can effectively achieve its worthwhile aim and that its extent is appropriate, thanks to some brief and well-targeted amendments that they, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, tabled in Committee.

By amending section 99(5) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Bill removes current restrictions on who can sign the legal notices required when leaseholders exercise certain statutory rights. The 1993 Act gave leaseholders of flats a range of very important rights. It is a valuable and effective piece of legislation, but it also includes a particular restriction, as we have heard, on signatories of notices. Removing that restriction is the focus of this Bill.

At present, the leaseholder of a flat who wants to extend their lease or take part in acquiring the freehold of their block must personally sign the legal notices required. No one else is allowed—even acting under a power of attorney—to sign on behalf of a leaseholder who is physically unable to do so. Case law confirms that the legislation that this Bill seeks to amend can be interpreted only as to require personal signature by the leaseholder, and that it does not permit signature on behalf of a leaseholder by anyone else, whether they be an ordinary agent or attorney. That includes when a leaseholder has become the subject of mental incapacity and the Court of Protection has issued a direction.

The High Court case of St Ermin’s Property Company Ltd v. Tingay in 2002 concluded that the signature of someone holding a power of attorney would not comply with the existing requirements of the 1993 Act. Put briefly, that particular appeal case concerned the validity of a notice given to the landlord by the relatives of an elderly leaseholder who had to move to accommodation where she could be better attended to. The relatives were acting under an enduring power of attorney that had been executed, giving them general authority to act on the elderly leaseholder’s behalf. The intention was to extend the lease of the flat using the statutory rights to ensure that the elderly leaseholder’s interests were protected. However, the High Court concluded that the legislation requires personal signature by the leaseholder and does not permit a signature on the leaseholder’s behalf by anyone else, whether they be an ordinary agent or an attorney.

That case is so important to the genesis of the Bill that I want to set out briefly a particular aspect of the judge’s summing up. He said:

“I find it difficult to understand quite why personal signature should be required in relation to a Section 42 notice by an individual tenant. However, the words of the Section are very clear.”

That backs up the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Worthing West. The judge also said:

“One might think it curious that the notice has to be given by the tenant, personally, in a situation in which the tenant has already decided that dealings in connection with the claim are to be with some other person, whether an attorney, a solicitor, valuer or whoever it may be, but the distinction is clear and it is, of course, even clearer in the context of section 99(5) itself.”

The judge could not have set out the nature of the problem more strongly. He could find in the law—as it still stands—no scope for ambiguity and no opportunity to take a flexible approach. Hon. Members will be clear about the very serious hurdle that the current legislation presents to certain leaseholders. It is a problem that this House today has an opportunity to help remove.

As the judge explained, we unfortunately do not know Parliament’s intention in framing section 99 as it did, because there was little or no debate about the issues. That highlights the Bill’s importance and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North for taking his time to go through exactly why it matters. The Government believe it is important to put clearly on the record why this Bill matters and the beneficial impact it could have. Should the judiciary come to look at the provision in future, I hope they will be able to see a clear outline of Parliament’s intent in framing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West has said, it will allow the courts to consider the general intent of Parliament with regard to personal issues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I emphasise the point—although I do not think that judges need it to be over-emphasised—that most people give power of attorney or ask somebody else to sign for them when they are incapable of signing themselves? Broadly speaking, they tend to be the most vulnerable, such as the old, the infirm and people who have a condition that makes it impossible for them to write, even though they may have all their senses. For example, I have a constituent who has lost both his hands. How would he sign, except perhaps with a mouth brush? One way or another, the judiciary have to accept, or Parliament should enact, that unless a court believes there is a specific reason why signatures should be made personally, a signature should be allowed to be made on someone’s behalf if they are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves but wish the act to take place.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. To reinforce his comments and because it is important to make clear the Bill’s intent in relation to giving people the ability to act sensibly and reasonably through a power of attorney and agents, I want to quote the judge again. Of the 1993 Act, he said:

“It seems to me that the words are clear and that whether there be good reasons, bad reasons or no reasons, the provision is clear. It is clearly deliberate, and the only way in which one could avoid giving the Section its literal effect is by finding that it produces some anomaly so serious that it cannot have been intended.”

He went on that counsel for the landlord

“submits that the reading, which does not permit a signature by an agent, does produce situations that cannot have been intended. The tenant in the present case is not, in fact, incapable, but what if she were?”

My hon. Friend outlined the case of someone who is vulnerable or incapable. The judge continued:

“Or what if the tenant were mentally capable but paralysed so as to be unable, physically, to impose anything by way of a signature on a document?”

All those issues need to be dealt with. The judge also said that

“whatever anomalies this provision may produce, or however much of a trap it may be for tenants and their advisers, I agree with His Honour Judge Cowell that the distinction drawn in the construction…of sub-section (5), between the method of signature of notices under section 13 or section 42 on the one hand, and other notices on the other hand, is so clear and so plainly deliberate that I cannot give section 99(5)(a) the meaning that it would have in isolation, and I must interpret it as”

—this is the important part of the quotation—

“requiring personal signature by the tenant, and not permitting signature on her behalf by anyone else, whether an ordinary agent or an attorney.”

The Bill will rectify that problem.