Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that and the role the Select Committee has played in relation to it. That was a very useful and important report that again demonstrated that there was cross-party support for those recommendations to be taken forward.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I had the opportunity to work very closely with the late Sir Anthony Hart. He conducted the inquiry in an incredibly professional way; it was very victim-centred. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a poignant and appropriate legacy to Sir Anthony Hart if this Government acted swiftly to implement those recommendations in terms of redress that he has just recently concluded?

[Nigel Dodds]

Yes, I agree; that is entirely right. This points to where we should be taking things forward in the interim. There are certain issues that have total cross-party support in Northern Ireland and where the demand has come from the Northern Ireland parties to the Government to do something. That is entirely different from Members here seeking to impose changes that are not agreed by the parties in Northern Ireland and when other pressing concerns—mental health and suicide strategy, health, education, jobs—are not being put forward for consideration at this stage. Moreover, this is not the appropriate vehicle through which to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues, which are myths that need to be dispelled, although I understand his concerns. The CEDAW report talks about the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is why a woman who is raped in Northern Ireland and seeks a termination after becoming pregnant will face a longer prison sentence than her attacker. It is why, in November, a mother who bought abortion pills online for her child—she was a child, because she was a 15-year-old girl in an abusive relationship—faces a jail sentence.

We must deal with the effects of this anachronistic, ancient law in Northern Ireland. My constituents, and constituents across England and Wales, are exempted from that Act, but it does not mean a free-for-all. In fact, new clause 10 is crafted in terms of statutory instruments under the Northern Ireland Act.

I am mindful that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have all set out proposals for medical guidance. Absolutely, abortion should be regulated. Absolutely, there should be clear guidelines. Nobody is seeking to change the term limit we have in England and Wales. The question is whether the law should be underpinned by criminal legislation or medical regulation, which is what new clause 10 would allow us to consider. It would therefore allow us to answer the question about the inequality of experience between my constituents in Walthamstow and the constituents of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) in Northern Ireland.

A thousand women from Northern Ireland have had to travel to England and Wales to have an abortion in the last year, and those are just the women who can travel. What a horrible, lonely journey to ask somebody to make at the most vulnerable moment in their life. That option is not available to women in an abusive relationship, who cannot get childcare or who cannot afford to travel.

New clause 10 is carefully crafted to respect the fact that, at the moment, we do not have an Assembly. If there were an Assembly, it could step in and deal with the criticisms that have been levelled at us by the UN. It could deal with the decisions made by the Supreme Court, which have not been enacted only because of a technicality. New clause 10 would mean these situations can be dealt with. Medical regulations could be introduced, but it would be done through a statutory instrument. It does not prescribe what the regulations would be, so it does not remove any of the protections the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

You have said many times, and it has caused distress, that a woman in Northern Ireland who is raped and seeks an abortion could face a longer jail sentence than her attacker. I have corresponded with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on this matter because of the concern you have caused out there. PSNI has confirmed that no woman has been sent to prison for an abortion-related offence, and I am meeting PSNI to talk it through.

Secondly, the issue about regulations is important. Regardless of whether you perceive abortion to be a right, the regulations are not prescriptive about some of the details highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but your proposal would mean there is no scrutiny of the regulations.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. You do not directly address another Member but address your comments through the Chair. This is obviously a sensitive debate, so it is important that we stick to the rules.

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Dame Rosie.

It is simply not the case that people have not been prosecuted. A mother is facing a jail sentence in November. We know that, in 2017, a man and woman accepted formal cautions under OPA for the same offence, and the charges were withdrawn only after the judge imposed a ban on identifying the woman due to the heightened risk of her suicide because of her distress at the situation. We know that, in 2016, a 21-year-old pleaded guilty to procuring her own abortion by poison after she bought pills online and her flatmate reported her to the police. Prosecution is a very real prospect in Northern Ireland, but it is not a real prospect for my constituents in another part of the United Kingdom who are in exactly the same situation.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I will come on to that point in considerable detail in my speech, if Members will bear with me.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I wish to touch on a point that was raised earlier. Does the hon. Lady agree that things are being said about this, particularly in relation to threatened imprisonment, that are not true and causing additional distress? In relation to the recommendations, they are simply recommendations on the way this could be done. It is right and proper that this is scrutinised to see exactly what the detail should be, and it should not be done by way of simple regulation or statutory instrument.

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely agree. If Members will permit me, I will go into detail on those concerns.

Last year, this House debated a similar Bill and many similar arguments were aired when we debated the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which was passed and became section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. That section required the Secretary of State to

“issue guidance to senior officers of all Northern Ireland departments which will specify how to exercise their functions in relation to—

(a) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 with the Human Rights Act 1998”

within three months of the Act passing. That guidance was issued by the Secretary of State in December. She clarified that:

“No declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been made by the Courts in respect of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”

She added that the guidance notes that it does not, and cannot be used to, change the current law on abortion. Section 4 did not require any further reporting on the law or its operation in Northern Ireland. So here we are again with Members seeking to put forward a considerable number of amendments relating to substantial changes to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, despite this issue being within the devolved competence of the Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “It kind of does.” If it kind of does, why are those who are saying that we should interfere on the issue of same-sex marriage and abortion not being consistent and arguing that we should be using the powers of this House and bringing back to this House all the other issues, many of which are also human rights issues, such as the human rights of people who need special education to get special education, and the human rights of people who need life-saving operations to have life-saving operations? I do not hear any siren calls from the people who are saying, “Yes, it kind of does matter that there is no devolution in Northern Ireland.” If it does, let us bring other matters back to this House.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Looking around the Chamber, it strikes me that there are a number of people present who were not here for yesterday’s debate, when we talked about a range of these issues. Whenever we talk about human rights, it is important to say that there are people sitting on waiting lists, when one of the fundamental human rights is the right to life. People on waiting lists are dying while waiting for cancer treatment and other treatments because there is no Assembly in Northern Ireland and there is a refusal of this place to intervene and try to do something about that. We do care about the rights of people right across the board, but that means that we must have the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running to deal with these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am going to deal precisely with that point if my hon. Friend will be patient.

The process we are undertaking this afternoon does not assist the talks process—quite the opposite. Some of those who support these amendments and new clauses will claim to generally accept this argument but suggest that abortion is different because there is a human rights imperative to override the devolution settlement. However, significant misinformation has been spread with regard to the status of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland in relation to human rights. Specifically, as we have heard, a number of claims have been made with regard to the CEDAW and a recent report by the CEDAW sub-committee on Northern Ireland.

First, let us consider the position of the legislation on abortion in Northern Ireland in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. It is important to stress that at this point there has been no declaration of incompatibility with regard to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. Yes, in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission judgment released in June 2018, a majority of judges indicated that if the plaintiff had standing in the case, they would have made a declaration of incompatibility with regard to cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases of sexual crime. However, these non-binding comments do not constitute a declaration of incompatibility.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better keep going to obey your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to reply to this point, which has been made in an intervention.

In addition, the Supreme Court, again in non-binding comments, unanimously found that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was compliant with the European convention on human rights in restricting access to abortion on the grounds of non-fatal disabilities. This part of the judgment is conveniently often forgotten in the rhetoric of proponents of change in the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. One might instead think, listening to the arguments made by some, that the Court found that the decriminalisation of abortion is required on the basis of human rights. That is simply false and needs to be understood as such. Individuals are of course entitled to argue for the decriminalisation of abortion, but they are not entitled to make this claim on the basis of human rights conventions or jurisprudence.

A future panel of the Supreme Court might well make a similar finding to that made in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission case. Indeed, a properly constituted case is currently before the courts in Northern Ireland with regard to fatal foetal abnormality. However, even if that were the case, the incompatibility to be resolved would be on the narrow grounds of some of the most tragic and difficult cases imaginable—that of fatal foetal abnormality, not on the grounds of decriminalisation of abortion. Furthermore, section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that even had the Supreme Court determined that a piece of primary legislation was incompatible—which it did not in this case—and made such a declaration, a declaration of incompatibility

“does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given”

and

“is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.”

Indeed, Baroness Hale pointed out that, even in cases where there is a ruling of incompatibility, that does not compel the legislature to change the law. It still has what she describes as a “do nothing” option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 9, the details of which have just been explained by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson); of new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy); and of new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). I will focus on abortion in Northern Ireland.

I have some sympathy with the point that this is a very narrowly defined Bill that is supposed to deliver certain eventualities, and that the amendments are widening in scope. Of course, the Clerk of Legislation, who is an absolute legend in this place, has decided that they are within scope. It is greatly frustrating that we have been having this conversation in this place for some time, because the Supreme Court has decreed that the law is incompatible with our obligations under treaty rights. When it comes to treaty rights, that is a matter for Parliament to correct; it is not a matter for Northern Ireland.

That opens up the point about why the Bill is being used in this regard. It is with regret, but with great frustration too, that we cannot seem to get Parliament to deliver by updating our laws to make them compliant with the Supreme Court’s judgment, because the Government have not moved.

I have great sympathy with the views held by hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I met representatives who were put in touch with me by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and they made their case, with great dignity and respect, for why they do not want to see abortion rights changed. I think it is important for us to meet all sides of the divide. Equally, I spent time with Amnesty International in Belfast, meeting those who felt that their lives had been ruined by the current situation.

It feels wrong to me that one part of the United Kingdom can be left behind with a near total ban on abortion. The situation is even more perverse now that the Republic has changed its legal position on the matter. In 2018, as we have heard, 1,053 women had to travel outside Northern Ireland in order to exercise the rights that would be available to them elsewhere in the UK. That shows the absurdity of the situation, because the abortions still took place, but the extra inconvenience has to be suffered. I think that we need to change that.

I want to return to the words of Lady Hale in her Supreme Court judgment. She said:

“I agree, for the reasons given by Lord Kerr and Lord Mance, that in denying a lawful termination of her pregnancy in Northern Ireland to those women and girls in these situations who wish for it, the law is incompatible with their Convention rights.”

She then explained that Parliament—she was very clear that this was for Parliament—could do three things:

“First, it may share the court’s view and approve a ‘fast track’ remedial order under section 10 of the HRA”—

the Human Rights Act 1998;

“Second, it may share our view and pass an Act of Parliament to put things right… Third, it may do nothing”

and see the matter taken further, through to Strasbourg. More tellingly, for me—this is why I think we have it within our gift and should enact the provision—she said the following:

“It is at this point that the democratic will, as expressed through the elected representatives of the people, rules the day.”

The Bill is perhaps not the best vehicle, but the law requires updating. We have an opportunity now to give people their dignity and their human rights.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

I will take one intervention, given that I have made so many myself.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

It is also the case, as we have articulated—we have received thousands of emails from across Northern Ireland—that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland does not support what is outlined in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted an issue with the court case, but this amendment goes well beyond that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak during the Committee stage of this important Bill.

This Bill is called the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, yet the debate has been pretty thin on how an Executive could be formed again in Northern Ireland. In fact, we have had a debate about every other issue under the sun except what we are supposed to be debating. That is no reflection, of course, on the Chair; it is because of the amendments that have been tabled to try to frustrate the very important issue of how we form an Executive in Northern Ireland.

People give us lip service. They tell us, “We want to have an Executive in Northern Ireland. We want the Executive brought back.” Here is a Bill that would let us do that, give impetus to the negotiators and give a fair wind to what is going on in Belfast and in Stormont at this particular time but, instead of being an encourager or facilitator of those talks, this House—during the debate today and yesterday—has actually become a frustrator of those talks. It wishes to frustrate them for the obvious reason that it wants to debate other issues that could interfere and affect the strange but important counterbalance required between the parties to encourage them to get in to the talks, to make progress and to ensure they are not put off by what is happening outside the Assembly.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

It is fair to say that we have entered into the substance of some of these issues here today, and everybody is clear that the DUP and others in the House have strong views on the substance of a number of those issues. However, it is also clear that what we are asking people to do is to vote on the process—an inadequate process. Fundamental change by way of Back-Bench amendments is not the way to do this. It does not facilitate scrutiny and it will impact on the talks process. We can revisit this appropriately in October, if need be.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes an appropriate point. Either we decide to direct-rule all powers in relation to Northern Ireland and deal with the issues honestly, openly and transparently here, or else we give a fair wind to the Assembly, allow it to get up and running, and allow it to be responsible for the affairs it is supposed to be responsible for. Having a foot in both camps, and saying we might legislate on these issues and we may have an impact on those issues, sometimes gives an advantage to one party in Northern Ireland over the other. That is where the process today, being driven by Back Benchers, on some of the amendments is totally disgraceful and wrong. I know—I have said this as clearly as I possibly can—that that is not the intention of many Members and that they all want to see stability back in Northern Ireland, but that is the effect of what they are doing. The impact of what they are doing will have that counterbalance on the situation in Northern Ireland.

A year or so ago, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report, “Devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland”, on dealing with the democratic deficit, which listed 67 issues that were in deficit and required to be addressed. Not one of those issues has been the subject of a Back-Bench amendment today—not one of them—yet that is the list; that is the authorised version list of what needs to be put in place to address the democratic deficit. But oh, no: we have other subject matters, which parties here know are part and parcel of the ongoing debate in Northern Ireland and of the ongoing negotiation in Northern Ireland, and they could hold other parties to ransom if they are dealt with here in advance of the outcome of the talks process in Northern Ireland. I think parties should waken up and recognise that they should be facilitating that process, not frustrating it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Emma Little Pengelly]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and then to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), but then I must make progress.

[John Penrose]

I am not sure that I have time, but I could go through other technical concerns. That is only one of the potential issues—there are broader points that would need to be fixed. But the question is whether or not the House is interested in the principle here, I suspect, on a free vote.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Is it not the case that the way in which new clause 10 is drafted is very broad and covers all the recommendations? There are many technical issues in those recommendations and there are many policy questions that need to be asked. It is wholly inappropriate that that should happen by regulation, with no scrutiny or process to decide what the policy should be on each and every recommendation.

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned in my response to new clause 1, it is entirely probable that it would not be possible to achieve this by October at all and, when we made those changes more broadly for the rest of the UK in previous years, that was done by primary legislation, not secondary legislation. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I want to make sure, as people reach principled decisions on an issue of conscience, on a free-vote issue on both sides of the House, that they are aware of the technical concerns so they are making an informed principled choice as well.

I will move on to new clauses 4 and 8; I am trying to pick up speed so that I do not run out of time. These new clauses would oblige the Government to schedule a debate on the issue of progress towards meeting international obligations in relation to the reproductive rights of women, and on the issue of progress towards implementing marriage for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland. I have already mentioned that the Government intend to make an oral statement to accompany the report under clause 3. I hope that people will be comfortable with that and that the Opposition Front-Bench team will feel able not to press those amendments.

I will now move on to victims’ pensions. Amendment 10 and new clause 2 commit the Government to publishing a report on progress towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for those seriously injured in the troubles, and for that report to be debated in Parliament. This is a very important issue and the UK Government take it very seriously. That is why the Secretary of State requested updated and comprehensive advice from the Victims’ Commissioner, which we have recently received. The completion of that advice represents an important step in taking forward a pension for victims of the troubles. The Northern Ireland Office is therefore undertaking detailed work on the next steps, based on that advice, with factual input and support from the Northern Ireland civil service. We will keep the House fully updated on progress and we will therefore be accepting amendment 10 to provide a report on those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly]

We have just had the conclusions of the legacy consultation and the release of a summary of the findings. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the confusion on a statute of limitations is that, due to the narrative around this, people do believe that this is an amnesty, but in fact it talks about limiting some circumstances, on the basis of fairness, which is very different from the principle of amnesty?

[Dr Lewis]

I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, and delighted that I gave way to her, because she has put that far better than I could.

What we are trying to come to here is a reasonable conclusion that would mean that, should compelling new evidence emerge—something that was overlooked and has now come to the fore, and that puts a completely different complexion on an allegation of a serious crime—indeed that would still be pursued, but where matters had been looked at previously, and where there was no compelling new evidence, a line should be drawn.

There is one more element that comes into this, which is the question whether such a qualified statute of limitations would conform to international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeply frustrating that we have made these arguments time and again and yet they have been rebuffed by the Government and others as too controversial? All we are trying to do is something very basic indeed—to put into law the dictionary definition of a victim. A victim is a victim of an act by another person. That is a dictionary definition; that should not be controversial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I did not necessarily automatically assume that the right hon. Gentleman was looking for retrospective legislation. That is an interesting point. The reality, however, is that for this state to now adopt retrospectively something that is imposed would be in contravention of article 29 of that statute.

I pray in aid the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a point about the role of the police. The role of the police and of the armed forces is very similar. George Hamilton, the outgoing chief constable of the PSNI, has made it clear that he does not believe in any form of statute of limitations. He said:

“There cannot be different rules for different citizens.”

That is a fundamental challenge. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland made the point that it would be an insult to police officers who were killed or injured on duty. This is the real point: in the end, we ask our armed forces to sign an oath to uphold the Queen and Her Majesty’s laws—except for the Royal Navy, ironically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who served in the Royal Navy, knows. We are talking not about the massive and overwhelming majority who serve faithfully in our armed forces, but about the small minority who transgress the law.

The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks drew a distinction between terrorists and those who are lawfully armed, but those who are lawfully armed and misuse those arms do not deserve any protection. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for New Forest East that I am not minded to support their amendment, but we will continue to debate this.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) raised an interesting question about the definition of victims, but it is probably too difficult to debate the whole point today. When I have spoken to victims of terrorism—for example, those in organisations such as WAVE—they have made it clear to me that they want to move on. They believe that, after this amount of time, pragmatism says, “Let’s get on and ensure that those who have been denied those pensions now receive them.” I have a lot of sympathy for that view. They have waited a long time for some form of recognition.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

The shadow Secretary of State started by saying that there cannot be moral equivalence between the perpetrators of terrorism and our armed forces. Will he take the opportunity to say, just as clearly, that there should never be moral equivalence between the innocent victims of the criminal acts of another, and people who went out to kill and murder, and ended up accidentally injuring or killing themselves? There cannot be moral equivalence between those two.

[Tony Lloyd]

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Lady. The Victims’ Commissioner has sought not to change the definition of victim, which was fixed in 2006, because she also wants to move on. I am sure we will return to that.

On the armed forces covenant, I have considerable sympathy with the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North. We need to see what a report can bring forward and how far that can be of use without causing other problems.

I must refer to the important amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which go to the heart of our role as parliamentarians. Parliament can never abrogate its responsibilities and pass them to an Executive, or even to a new Prime Minister appointed by as many as 160,000 of our fellow citizens. That is unconscionable. We must insist that Parliament continues to sit.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to say that nowhere would be as badly affected as Northern Ireland by a no-deal Brexit. I think he said that was “arguable”; it is actually unarguable. It would be catastrophic for security and the economy, and in its capacity to induce terrorism, as well as for the important question of identity. For many reasons, Northern Ireland needs us to prevent a crash-out Brexit. We had that debate yesterday, and I can think of few organisations in Northern Ireland that would disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we cannot afford a no-deal Brexit. The Northern Ireland national farmers union, the CBI, Manufacturing Northern Ireland and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are all of the view that it would be disastrous. Parliament must be here to protect the people of Northern Ireland, to debate their future, and, in particular, to say that if this House of ours chooses to vote for a no-deal Brexit, it will have made a conscious choice. What we cannot allow is the House to be offered no choice at all, and the people of Northern Ireland to be held hostage to the ideologies of those who do not serve their interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and I hope he and his colleagues the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) recognise that we will be supportive of their amendments.

I rise to speak to amendment 18. I will not refer to amendment 19; I have signed it so we can take as read that it has my support. Amendment 18 requires a report to be brought forward about the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Members may remember that I brought forward a private Member’s Bill on 6 February. It was supported by Members of Parliament right across the Chamber and from right across the country, all of whom accept that the armed forces covenant is a national commitment to those who served us. It does not respect devolution; it does not respect borders. It was our way as a nation of saying the service that individuals have given and the sacrifice they themselves have made, and their families in support of them, is worthy of recognition. As has been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), it does not offer preferential treatment, but it ensures that those who served our country so well do not suffer any disadvantage: they are not precluded from accessing services because they have to move around, for example, or they do not lose out in their children’s applications to schools because they were not living within the catchment area at the time of application.

It is fundamentally wrong, fundamentally immoral, fundamentally unacceptable that the armed forces covenant does not apply equally in Northern Ireland. If every Member of this House accepts that to be the case, it is incumbent upon us all to support this Government bringing forward legislation that will ensure no Minister in a Northern Ireland Executive has the opportunity or is given the freedom to abide by their political prejudice and frustrate the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this provides a really good opportunity for the British Government to say very clearly to British soldiers from Northern Ireland that they are as valued as British soldiers from any other part of this United Kingdom, and whether or not they get help should not rely on the whims, the bigotry and the hatred of a particular Minister from Sinn Féin in the relevant Department denying the rights and support that those soldiers need?

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree absolutely, and Members who have followed my contributions on this issue over the past number of years will recall time and again that I have shared correspondence that was sent from Michelle O’Neill, the then Health Minister, on 15 December 2016, when she indicated, “I am sorry, the armed forces covenant does not apply here.” She is wrong, but for as long as we refuse to take action, she is allowed to get away with her prejudice infecting the virtue of the armed forces covenant. It is not right.

Time and again, we have had updates in this Chamber and through the Defence Committee, on which it is a privilege to serve, where we hear in armed forces implementation reports that everything is great and that each of the eleven councils in Northern Ireland has an armed forces champion. Yet nobody ever then seeks to realise that our councils in Northern Ireland have no responsibility for health, for social services, for housing or for education. Indeed, in all the operative Departments where there is a meaningful a role to play and a meaningful gift to give to those who have served us so well, that responsibility falls to the Northern Ireland Executive. How bizarre!

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North has relayed to the Chamber the fact that the head of the civil service said in a letter that he was sorry he could not attend the Veterans Board, because it was not previously agreed by the Executive. We are discussing an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill that says that if it is in the public interest, senior departmental officials can take decisions, yet Northern Ireland is left with a representative from the Northern Ireland Office, which has no ministerial responsibility for or operational involvement in our health, education, social services or schools—none—yet we rely on the Northern Ireland Office when we are discussing a Bill that gives a senior departmental official the ability to decide to attend. I think that that is clearly in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I should probably start by formally begging to move that clauses 1 to 4 stand part of the Bill. If I do not say that, bad things will probably happen and we will not get to the important part of our proceedings.

I begin with the four amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which would require the first progress report under clause 3 to be made on 4 September, not 21 October. As he mentioned, fortnightly reports would then be required from 9 October until 18 December if an Executive had not been formed. Any report under clause 3 or any regulations under clause 2 would be subject to an approval motion in this House and a “take note” motion at the other end of the corridor.

The Government agree that Parliament must be kept closely informed of progress towards restoring an Executive in Northern Ireland, which is precisely what clause 3 provides for, and we are willing to consider or accept various other reporting obligations, as I made clear in response to the earlier group of amendments. I continue that good will and positive approach under this second group of amendments.

Given the fundamental importance of these issues, I am happy to confirm that we accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment 14, on the progress report to Parliament on or before 4 September. However, I have to disagree with him and oppose his other amendments.

The requirement for regular fortnightly reporting throughout the autumn, subject to a vote on each occasion, would simply be an excessive and unnecessary procedure. I also note that the requirement for fortnightly reports and motions would attach to many of the other reporting obligations on different topics that hon. and right hon. Members seek to add to clause 3. The amount of parliamentary time we booked up throughout September and into the autumn, should the Executive in Stormont not have been created, would start to mount.

I appreciate that what lies behind my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments is not solely a concern to keep abreast of the progress towards restoring the devolved Government in Northern Ireland. He is very clear that his interests are a great deal broader and are primarily motivated by concerns about Brexit. We happily accept amendment 14, but, for the reasons I have laid out, I hope he will understand that we are not minded to accept his other three amendments, which I hope he will not press after he has had a chance to consider my remarks.

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for tabling amendments 6 and 7 on veterans. There is broad agreement, after a couple of urgent questions and a couple of debates in Westminster Hall and in the House over the past month, that the current legacy system is not working well for pretty much anyone. The system has to change, and it has to provide better outcomes. The system has to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, particularly the armed forces and police officers.

The draft Bill on which we consulted last year would require a new body investigating legacy cases to do so in a fair, balanced and proportionate manner. We have just finished consulting, and we have published the responses in the past week. Interestingly, there were strong and widespread views against either an amnesty or immunity from prosecution, and both my right hon. Friends were keen, and rightly so, to make clear the difference between those two proposals and the ideas proposed in their amendments.

There is widespread concern about former soldiers being pursued by vexatious and unfair court cases 40 or 50 years after they finish serving. Amendments 6 and 7 would require the Secretary of State to report on progress towards introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, and they would require the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to produce guidance on legacy cases with a presumption in favour of prosecution in cases where a weapon had been unlawfully obtained. That is a worthy attempt to make a distinction and to unravel the tendency in some cases for people to try to create moral equivalence between terrorists and Her Majesty’s armed forces.

It is important to be clear that the specifics of the particular or associated issues that are being proposed here did not form part of the Stormont House agreement. They were not recommended or supported widely in the responses to the consultation either. There are also some other technical concerns about whether the UK Government can direct the Attorney General for Northern Ireland—I think that is problematic. In principle, however, the point is this: I intend to take the two amendments in the spirit in which I think they are intended. I think they are intended to be a valid and sincere attempt to move this issue forward.

It is time and past time that a solution was found to this issue. Whether or not the precise details of these specific proposals are approved of in all their details in the report or approved of only in part and other things perhaps brought forward instead is beside the point. The important thing is that these two reports could serve as a way to advance that cause, identify solutions and move this forward. It is overdue that we do so and I am delighted to support the amendments.

I now move on to the points made about the armed forces covenant, which several right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from the Northern Ireland Benches, put eloquently and with great passion. I am dealing here with new clauses 15 and 16, and amendment 18. As we have heard, the armed forces covenant is hardly a new policy and it has always extended, in principle, to Northern Ireland. We continue to need to strengthen the delivery of the covenant in Northern Ireland. We have heard today some concerning and sometimes shocking examples of occasions when it could and should have been applied but had not been. The principle of the covenant was formalised in the Armed Forces Act 2011. In accordance with the Act, the Secretary of State for Defence is legally obliged to publish an annual report, which sets out the key deliverables under the covenant. This report incorporates progress in delivering the covenant across the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. We also ensure that covenant delivery is kept on track through a number of committees and boards.

Everyone in this House has, as our Government and our Democratic Unionist party confidence and supply partners certainly have, consistently demonstrated a commitment to upholding the principles and universality of the covenant, which is evident in the work reported in each of the annual reports laid in the House. We will continue to report progress to Parliament, we recognise our commitment to our confidence and supply partners to have full implementation of the armed forces covenant across the UK, and we are committed to looking at further legislation if that is required.

Amendment 19 and new clause 18 relate to the definition of a “victim” and stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds). The definition of a victim is laid down in legislation—the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a devolved matter, any change to this definition would need to be agreed with the parties in the Executive and, ultimately, by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government recognise that the definition of a victim is something that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have campaigned on for a number of years, and we commit to looking UK-wide at how we can make sure the victims are duly recognised and protected in law. I hope that, with this commitment and the one I made previously, the right hon. Gentleman is willing not to press his amendment.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

It is important to highlight what I believe is not an accurate description of the legal position. The 2006 order refers only to matters pertaining to the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland. There is no general definition of victim, and our argument is that a victim in Northern Ireland is the same as a victim across the UK. Sadly, there are many victims of terrorism across the UK, and this should rightly be a matter for the British Government, to be legislated on here.

[John Penrose]

I hope that the commitments I have just made and the words I was able to adduce have reassured the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his colleagues, and that on that basis they will be willing not to press their amendments. I think we are in agreement on the issue, but I am sure they will intervene on me if not.

Finally, let me turn to amendments 21 and 22, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke briefly and eloquently late on in our proceedings. The amendments would require reports on gambling and the progress towards looking after gambling addicts, and on people who were victims of human trafficking. On the basis that we have been willing to consider other reports, I am of course willing to respond to that request and to accept the amendments.

I hope we have managed to dispose of the various amendments in reasonably good order, that everybody will treat the Government’s approach to those amendments in as constructive and positive a way as possible, and that we will therefore be able to dispose of the remaining business in Committee easily and straightforwardly. I therefore wish to do something quite unusual for a politician, which is to draw my remarks to a close, stop talking and sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Progress report

Amendment made: 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out “21 October” and insert “4 September”.—(Mr Grieve.)

This amendment would bring forward the date for a progress report to 4 September 2019.

Amendment proposed: 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards protecting veterans of the Armed Forces and other security personnel from repeated investigation for Troubles-related incidents by introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, in the absence of compelling new evidence, whether in the form of a Qualified Statute of Limitations or by some other legal mechanism.”—(Dr Julian Lewis.)

The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the options available to ensure that veterans of the Troubles would be able to assist in a truth recovery process, for the benefit of bereaved families, without fear of prosecution.