Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am so very glad that we are here today and that we are getting to the final stage of this process. It has been a battle throughout, not least for the many victims and survivors of this terrible abuse. It has even been a battle just to get this legislation through the House today, and I pay tribute to everybody who has worked incredibly hard to get us to this point. My colleagues and I, other parties, the victims and others across Northern Ireland have lobbied incredibly hard to get this legislation through, and I am really grateful and glad that we have been able to achieve that. At times we expressed frustration and anger that these provisions were potentially not going to go through the House, but the Secretary of State did his best and succeeded, and we see the evidence of that today. This Bill will go through the House in exceptional circumstances, with so many people across so many different elements of the system having worked to make this happen, and I am so very glad—not for us, but for the victims and survivors of this dreadful abuse.

I am glad that those who have suffered through this process will be able to see the genuine care and empathy of all Members who have spoken on the issue thus far. The Secretary of State made a wonderful speech that was very much from the heart, and we could see that. I hope that the victims and survivors get some comfort from the fact that many people care deeply about this issue. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Once again, he made a beautiful and poignant speech that was truly from the heart. That will be picked up, heard and listened to by the victims and survivors, and I hope that it gives them some comfort.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The victims are very grateful for and conscious of the Bill’s progress today, and we hope that it will proceed apace. In addition, though, some have said to me that they are appreciative of and grateful for the empathy, support, sympathy and solidarity with them from across the community, as well as the concrete steps being taken today. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I absolutely agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.

I am so glad that this legislation for the victims and survivors of abuse is one of the last things that this House will have achieved in this Parliament. This is a Parliament that has been dominated by a small number of big issues, and we know very well what those are; I am not even going to say the word. Yet I know that Members from every single party right across this House and the elected representatives in Northern Ireland get into politics because they want to make change on these types of issues. They want to make changes on education, health and public services, and to address great wrongs and injustices. It is such a good thing that we are ending this Parliament on such an issue, and that the many hundreds and thousands of people who suffered appalling abuse, as the Secretary of State outlined, will finally get the last piece of this process: redress. But redress will not be closure. It will never undo the dreadful wrongs that happened to all those children in those settings.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady was instrumental in setting up the inquiry from the beginning. Let me make a point to her that always struck me when I was in the Home Office dealing with these matters for England and Wales, which is that to call this historical abuse is absolutely wrong. It is not historical; it is current and present. It is with the victims every single day.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Absolutely. I was involved in this process right from the start, seven years ago. I pay tribute to the right hon. Peter Robinson and the late Martin McGuinness, because I was present at the meeting when the victims and survivors came in and told us of the terrible, terrible experiences they went through, and both those men were genuinely moved. Who could not be moved by hearing those personal experiences and the terrible wrongs? But both of those men were very moved, and they worked together, and tasked me and some others to go away and try to drive this work forward. Throughout those seven years, civil servants at all levels, the late Judge Hart and all those who gave support and help were really motivated to get through the process and to do so swiftly, because they had heard the terrible things that had happened and had seen the injustice that they wanted to address.

I have to say that I am angry that it has taken this long to get to this point of redress. The inquiry was unusual in that the timeframe was put down in legislation. The late Judge Hart made it absolutely clear that, yes, he would request the extension that he was allowed by the legislation, but he would also meet the timeframes set out, so we always knew when the inquiry was going to report, because he made that clear. I and others made representations to those who pulled down the Assembly, asking them not to do so in order to allow the report to come forward, and I am genuinely angry that it happened. I am angry that we have had to wait for those years for the victims and survivors to get the redress they deserve and that we knew was coming.

But today is not a day about recriminations. In fact, this has been a good example of how the political parties can work together and the difference that they can make—not, perhaps, on the bigger issues that will always be challenging, but on these types of significant issues that are so meaningful to people’s lives.

I pay tribute to all the victims and survivors, who have been on this journey right from the start, including Margaret, Kate, Gerry and Jon McCourt, all of whom have been mentioned in this debate. They have done incredible work because they have represented not just themselves, but the many thousands of victims across Northern Ireland—in fact, across the world—who perhaps could not step forward. They were brave enough to do so no matter how difficult it was, and it must have been incredibly difficult for them to tell their own stories again and again and again to try to get the inquiry and the justice they deserved.

I have been involved in this process for seven years, so it is really good to see it come to an end today, but the victims and survivors have been involved for decades and decades before that. As I have said in the House many times, many of these children came from very challenging and difficult circumstances, and what they needed was love, protection and support. But when we read the report and listen to their experiences, we know that what they got was cruelty, depravity and harshness. That is appalling. Right from that very first meeting with Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson, those who were in the room were absolutely struck that the right thing to do was to try to get justice for the victims. There is very broad consensus on that in every political party and right across this House.

I pay tribute to all the victims and survivors. This is not the end of their journey. They will continue with all the pain and suffering—the legacy of what happened to them. I hope that this redress and financial support—and what it symbolises—will be of some comfort, as well as a recognition of their hard and incredible work to stand up and address the terrible, terrible wrong that was done to them and many thousands of other children.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd]

I have enormous sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. One thing we do know is that there has been significant demographic change in Northern Ireland in the last three years. The population is growing increasingly elderly and the number of young people, in relative terms, is decreasing. Therefore, the decisions made by politicians those years back may still be relevant in some areas, but in others they are beginning to be stretched.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is currently not only a lack of scrutiny and reactiveness, as outlined, but a lack of transparency? I have written to the head of the civil service on numerous occasions to ask about the additional money that goes into the Northern Ireland budget—I accept that it is by way of unhypothecated Barnett consequentials, which is not ring-fenced, and decisions must be made on where it goes—and I get a fairly stock response simply to say, “This is not ring-fenced. We will have discussions and civil servants will decide.” Civil servants have done nothing to open up their processes to scrutiny and transparency. It appears that they are still unaccountable to anybody. We now see this Bill, which outlines their decisions, rushed through this House with very limited scrutiny. It is letting down the people of Northern Ireland.

[Tony Lloyd]

Again, I have real sympathy with the point made by the hon. Lady. It is similar to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) about ring-fencing of moneys for the high streets and the inability to trace those moneys. In fact, some time back I raised with the previous Secretary of State whether it would be possible to have an accountability mechanism whereby the Northern Ireland civil service would respond to questions from Members of this House so we could scrutinise its decisions for exactly those reasons and provide at least transparency, even if that would not necessarily lead to proper accountability of the spend made.

These are really important issues, and they would be important even in an annual budget. If this was the budget for a large local authority—the Greater Manchester Combined Authority budget or that of the London Mayor are, I suppose, equivalent to the budget of Northern Ireland—we would be astonished if we did not have the capacity to scrutinise it. I say to the Secretary of State that I think the time is coming when we will need to look again at how the scrutiny process takes place; that will not be resolved today, but clearly we have to look at it.

I have some questions for the Secretary of State. I should say that we do not intend to block the Bill in any way, shape or form. It is vital that it goes through, and the amount of time available does not allow for any rarefied debate about more than the general outlines. However, there are some issues that we must begin to address. I nearly quoted the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, but I shall paraphrase: he said that Northern Ireland has the money for a world-class health service, but it just does not have the money for the health service that Northern Ireland has. In that, he was referring to the fact that the Bengoa reforms, which would and could have transformed the health service in Northern Ireland, had not been implemented.

There are issues about areas where we know the spend is no longer adequate. We know, for example, that Northern Ireland now has longer waiting lists than any other part of this United Kingdom. We know that mental health provision is unacceptably poor in Northern Ireland; I have to say that it is poor in my own constituency, but it is nevertheless particularly bad in Northern Ireland. The chilling fact that more people have committed suicide since the end of the troubles than people died during the troubles gives some indication of the need for improvement in those services.

We know about social care and the demands on it—again, this addresses the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim. We know that the number of elderly people and the dependent elderly is growing all the time in Northern Ireland, just as it is in my own constituency, but the capacity of the budget to deal with those issues has remained largely unchanged. We know that education spending is no longer appropriate: Northern Ireland still has a high standard of results in its educational system, but too many people are now being left behind because of the inappropriate nature of the education service.

I would particularly like to continue the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) raised in Question Time earlier. The Minister of State has used words like “the same refrain” when saying that the answer lies in getting devolved governance back. I understand that that is the long-term answer, but we are going to face a crisis for some individual families because of the exhaustion of the welfare mitigations. It is not simply about housing: it cuts across other areas of spend where those mitigations are protecting families now. The Secretary of State’s response was that he would look to see what could be done by him and the Northern Ireland Office. We have to look very closely at the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Office working with the Northern Ireland civil service, and that is important.

Let me ask a specific question. Does this budget contain money for the Stormont House bodies? Those bodies ought to be set up imminently, of course, so money has to be made available for them. We need to know that the proper provisions are there. Equivalently, and this is also important, if the historical institutional abuse Bill is not going to come before Parliament immediately, I hope it will be introduced rapidly by whatever Government take their place after the election so that that legislation can come into operation. That means we need to see within this budgetary framework, resource available for HIA victims, who deserve not simply our compassion but our recognition and our financial support.

I need in that context to ask the following question. The Secretary of State has been very specific: he has undertaken to see whether it is possible in terms of welfare spend to use imagination around the powers that do exist. I wonder whether he will now begin to apply the same kind of imagination to see whether it is possible to create within the framework of the existing spending operations something that begins the process of reconciliation, even if it is just the simple acknowledgment of payment to victims of institutional abuse. Money clearly is not everything in that context, but if it is possible, even without the legislative framework, to find an imaginative way of making some form of payment, that would at least go some way to showing the willingness of the Government and the Secretary of State, which I know is there, to try to rectify the failure of the system and get this Bill through Parliament.

This Bill is important—I think everybody accepts that. Nobody is going to want to block the capacity for the structures to operate within Northern Ireland over the coming three months, so it is important that this is passed today before Parliament is dissolved. We will support the Secretary of State in moving it through Parliament, but there are some issues that he and his Department need to begin to look at and see whether there are at least some patches that can be applied that can make a material difference to those who would most suffer if we do not get the answers right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I appreciate that intervention. I know that from time to time Members express concerns about the pay of Members of the Legislative Assembly. I rarely hear a concern expressed about the paid lobbyists of Sinn Féin who are omnipresent in the coffee shops or outside on the Green but are absent from these green Benches, failing to fulfil their responsibilities to their constituents. Yet they alone are responsible for Northern Ireland’s not having a functioning Executive.

On 21 October—this month—the Assembly met, and representatives of a number of parties turned up. Shamefully, representatives of Sinn Féin were not among them. They absented themselves, and I have to say with some regret that the Alliance party also absented itself. This is the party that describes itself as the bridge builder, the party to bring people together, but on an occasion when we were bringing our elected representatives together at Stormont to try to break the logjam, the bridge builders were nowhere to be seen. They were absent without leave.

I hear lectures from some Alliance party representatives about how we should be doing this and that and restoring Stormont, but when they had an opportunity to show their presence and highlight the fact that Sinn Féin alone is holding the people of Northern Ireland to ransom, yet again the Alliance party gave Sinn Féin political cover by absenting itself from Stormont.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an issue about which many people in all communities in Northern Ireland care very deeply? People are very concerned, because they do not know about the details that have led the Secretary of State to present regulations relating to the termination of pregnancies. Those who did not turn up, or who refused to go into that Chamber, did not just deny any democratic accountability in respect of that decision; they even closed down basic debate because they disagreed with another party’s stance, and some other people’s stance, on the issue. That is shameful. They should have at least facilitated debate, because the people of Northern Ireland wanted that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Thank you. We will be back.

It is frustrating that we find ourselves in this situation, and I have a lot of sympathy for the Secretary of State for having to perform these functions, but I want to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made the point earlier when he intervened on the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that this cannot continue indefinitely. This is not how democracy should function.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the issue about the pay of MLAs is ironic? We have raised an issue about political donations many times with the Secretary of State, and it is that Sinn Féin fundraises huge amounts of money outside the United Kingdom—in the United States and in other places—which it can use to sustain its operation, but it is the party that is preventing every other MLA from getting back to work. This needs to be addressed urgently.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

The consultation paper makes very clear that we have not set a timeframe. We have talked about the period of the troubles ending with the Good Friday agreement, but I am not prejudging the decision. Omagh is one atrocity, but there are many more, subsequent to the agreement, that we will have to consider as well. I want to hear from all victims. I want to hear from people who may not have been involved in a tragedy such as Omagh but whose victimhood may have resulted from their being in prison or being attacked, or as a result of a range of other experiences. I want to hear from all those people, and we will then reflect on what, if any, is the best timeframe for the payments.

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

The Secretary of State will know that there have been many detailed discussions about the legacy proposals, including discussions about dates. He will also know, from his time in his current role and also from briefing about events that preceded it, that—as far as I can recollect—all the political parties have been flexible about taking a compassionate approach. I do not think that this should be a controversial issue; I think that we should show compassion.

[Julian Smith]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. That is exactly the approach that the Government will take. We cannot be hard and fast. We must be inclusive. We must ensure that the payment scheme, for which many Members have campaigned on behalf of constituents throughout Northern Ireland, applies to all victims. We talked about the period of the troubles during the consultation, but I was also careful to ensure that we would not be restricted to that and that we would work with Opposition parties to bring about a better definition if we need to define a period that is acceptable to us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am very capable of reading the information. The information that I have is contrary to what the hon. Lady has just said.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

For the purpose of clarification, reference was made to the case in the courts recently. The case included the procurement of abortion pills. It was dropped because of the change in the law around decriminalisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to say that access to these pills is not affected by the change? It clearly is impacted by the change.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for the clarification. In his introduction, the Minister referred to the abortion pills as well.

If encouragement were sufficient, then we may as well do away with legislation and simply replace it with guidance, but we would not do that because it would not be responsible, especially when dealing with matters as important as the safety of women. The truth is that the Northern Ireland Office has failed the women of Northern Ireland. Quite apart from the wider concerns about respecting devolution and the fact that the Assembly voted against any change in the law as recently as February 2016—and that was a decision passed by the Assembly—the Northern Ireland Office did not need to support an amendment in another place removing abortion law regarding pregnancies up until the point just prior to when the baby is capable of being born alive, five months before making provision for a new law to take its place. This, I believe, was grossly irresponsible and completely unnecessary. Clearly, there must be no question of rushing the new legislation. It is right to take five months to consult on it and develop it. I welcome the fact that the Minister has referred to that and to the consultation with the Church groups. That is critical, and I appreciate his mentioning it.

In the intervening period, however, rather than pretending that guidance provides the same protection as the law, the Government should now urgently reintroduce sections 58 and 59 until the new law is ready to take over. The opinion of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to the law on abortion is clear. The majority of people from all sections, of all genders and of all ages are against this liberalisation and change in Northern Ireland, and this House does not respect that and does not take that into consideration.

I want to quickly speak about historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland and survivor groups. This morning, I met some of the people from one of those groups—the HIA survival group, which set up a trust, the Survivors (North West). Some of them made representations at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I met them today in my office. I wish to comment on one issue alone within the historical institutional abuse case and it is to do with the length of time in an institution. What has been agreed, which would be contrary to the opinion of the Rosetta Trust and Survivors (North West), is that there should not be a fixed payment for each year that an individual spent in an institution. Redress awards are to be assessed on an individual basis, taking account of the incidents, the duration and the severity of abuse.

Some of the people I spoke to this morning were in Rubane House in my constituency, where physical and sexual abuse took place. They were very traumatised by what happened to them. They welcome the fact that there will be a one-off payment of £10,000. That is good news, but they are concerned about the redress award system. They feel that there should be a payment for every one of those years retrospectively, but that does not seem to be included in this process. I ask the Secretary of State to look at that again.

The reason I say that is that those people who came to see me today are greatly traumatised by what has happened. They are severely traumatised, and suffer from memories and nightmares of the abuse that took place against them physically and sexually. When it comes to what they feel is appropriate and should happen, it is not about the money; it is about the recognition of years of abuse. The compensation should be retrospective for every year the victims were abused. If those people had the opportunity for legal redress, the cost for each individual would be between £35,000 and £40,000. The point is that making retrospective compensation payments would probably be a cheaper option, but it would address the victims’ issues.

I will conclude now because others wish to speak. The two issues that I have discussed today are really important: first, the clear impression and opinion of people across Northern Ireland is that the changes liberalising abortion are wrong and should not be imposed on Northern Ireland; and secondly, that compensation for survivors of HIA, including those in the Survivors (North West) group, should be retrospective with a payment for every year they were abused.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise, as the Secretary of State might expect, to ask him another series of questions about the changes in the law regarding abortion in Northern Ireland, which he knows I feel very strongly about. This Act compelled the Secretary of State to act—from start to finish. A week ago, 50% of what the Act asked the Secretary of State to do came into law, which was to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It has been mentioned already that there was a court case outstanding, and it is worth starting there and talking about the difference made by that 50% of the Act coming into law.

The case involved the mother of a then 15-year-old girl, who was in an abusive relationship. The mother bought her daughter abortion pills online to help her, but when she took her to the doctor was reported to the police under the legal duty to report. It is about removing that legal duty to report; it is not that people who continue to supply abortion pills and are not medically qualified will evade prosecution. It is worth reading into the record the words of that mother, who went into court the day after the legislation came into effect and saw the case against her, which had been hanging over her for so long, abandoned. She said:

“For the first time in six years I can go back to being the mother I was, without the weight of this hanging over me…every day…I am so thankful that the change in the law will allow other women and girls to deal with matters like this privately in their own family circle.”

She said that she could finally move on with her life.

We can debate all the technicalities of these issues, but fundamentally last week something of a magnitude beyond any of our individual comprehensions changed for so many people in Northern Ireland when that Bill became law—in that 50% repeal of the Offences Against the Person Act. And, yes, I think this place should welcome that, not least because the case of the mother I just spoke about shows the human impact of that piece of legislation from the 1800s hanging over the lives of women in Northern Ireland.

I am here this evening to ask the Secretary of State about his duty to finish the other 50% of this legislation, and to ask him what happens now. I share the concern that we need to clarify the regulations. I understand that there is scepticism from some about the existing regulations, and I pay tribute to the shadow Minister, who did a fantastic job of setting out all the existing regulations—and therefore the confidence that many people should have that this is not some free-for-all in Northern Ireland that has happened in the last week—but there is a case for clarifying what the regulations are. That case is being made not least by the doctors who have been writing to the Secretary of State asking for that clarification because, as of last Tuesday, they can prescribe abortion pills.

I think we would all recognise that had this place passed the 1967 legislation for abortion access in England and Wales by saying, “Well, we’re going to say that you can continue to have a back-street abortion, but you won’t be prosecuted if you go to A&E”, none of us would have accepted that as a reasonable position. And yet, at this point in time—because it is not clear how doctors in Northern Ireland can prescribe abortion pills to women in Northern Ireland who wish to use them—we are risking saying to women, “Continue buying them online and not being clear about which providers are safe, but at least now you won’t be prosecuted”, as the mother I described had to deal with for many years.

I would really welcome clarification from the Secretary of State about what he is doing with regard to the doctors who are writing to him asking him where they get the prescriptions from and how they make sure they can give safe advice. To be honest, asking women to travel is not a solution. In the past week, the only message we have been able to give to women in Northern Ireland who now wish to access their right to a safe, legal and local abortion is that they have to travel. If they have family commitments, if they are in abusive relationships or if they do not have the relevant travel documentation, that is not a solution for them.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

The hon. Lady said that the only advice to some would be to order these pills online. It is very important to outline that the medical advice is absolutely clear that it can be dangerous to take these types of pills without medical supervision. The case that she referred to was a case of abortion pills being procured by a mother for her child where there were complications resulting in her having to present. So, yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady: there needs to be guidance in relation to this but we must also be responsible and say very clearly that we should not recommend the route of buying these types of pills online because people do not know what they are going to get.

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree. What I am saying, therefore, is that the Secretary of State now has a responsibility to the women and girls in Northern Ireland who wish to be able to access this right to make sure that there is clarity about where they can get abortion pills prescribed by a medical professional. These changes were never about removing the medical component of abortion, but simply about recognising that it should be a medical rather than a criminal matter.

The Secretary of State will know from the letters that I have been writing to his Department that I am concerned that there has not been clarity for women and girls in Northern Ireland about their rights and how to access those rights in the past week. There needs to be more public information about how to access an abortion, alongside the work to make sure that they can access a safe abortion. He will know of the long-standing concerns that many of us have about the concept of public consultation. While he talks about both sides of the debate, he himself has been clear that what is up for debate is not whether abortion is available in Northern Ireland but how it happens. Many of us consider that to be a purely medical question. Indeed, the legislation required the Secretary of State to do this in line with the CEDAW––convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—principles.

A week ago, the Secretary of State’s junior Minister—I am sorry, but I am not quite sure of his role—said that the consultation would be published on the following day. We are now a week on. We do not have any of the details of that consultation—what the Government believe they should consult on that meant that any consultation would be in line with the CEDAW principles and would not undermine what this House decided, which is that women in Northern Ireland should be able to access an abortion equally. The Secretary of State talks about consulting the widest range of stakeholders, but he will understand the concern that many of us have about bringing non-medical professionals into the provision of medical services, and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) has highlighted, the importance of having proper medical engagement.

Let us be honest about this: there is no way a member of a Church community would have the same medical standing as, say, doctors or the royal colleges with regard to the specifics of how a medical procedure is provided. It is absolutely imperative that we have the details of what the Secretary of State thinks he is going to consult on and how he squares that with the CEDAW requirements, so that we can be confident that he is not opening a hornets’ nest when it comes to providing the other 50% of this legislation.

It is very important that we put to bed any suggestion that anything has changed in the time limits through what happened last week. The 1945 Act, which the shadow Minister mentioned, is still in place. That is very clear about not changing the viability provisions. People talk about abortions at five months, but that is not what is being talked about in Northern Ireland at all. If anything, modern medicine changes the concept of what viability is to perhaps something that people would consider to be even lower. But there is an issue when it comes to fatal foetal abnormalities and the Bourne judgment. Again, the CEDAW judgment called our attention to how that is interpreted in Northern Ireland, with the concern about how the concepts of the preservation of the life of the mother and of long-term damage were being interpreted. It is vital that the Government address this so that we can be sure that women in Northern Ireland are not being treated differently with regard to preservation of life from women in England and Wales.

We know that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines apply, but can the Secretary of State confirm that those will be used to deal with these sorts of issues? While the vast majority of abortions happen before 10 weeks, there are some very sad cases that involve late-term abortions, often for very good medical and health reasons. It is vital, in separating out these two issues and ensuring that people in Northern Ireland have confidence about what this legislation has done and the regulations that the Government will bring in, that those issues are addressed. We know that whether people can access a safe, legal abortion has no impact on the rate of abortion, but we also know that keeping people safe starts with ensuring that they are not criminalised for wanting to make a basic human right choice—to have control over their own body.

I urge the Secretary of State to address those issues. In this interim period, many women in Northern Ireland will need our help and support; I have been contacted by women who are not clear about how to access these services. They have seen that their human rights are finally being upheld, and now they need the Secretary of State to finish the job—which he alone can do, because the legislation was clear that it ultimately rests with him to protect their human rights—that the House asked him to do in July and that came to fruition last Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I first add my support for the many issues that my colleagues have discussed today? In particular, I want to focus in my short remarks on a number of policy issues that should be being dealt with by the Northern Ireland Executive but that, sadly, are not.

Of course, there are many important issues in the overall reports, and we have heard some detailed discussion of them. In previous debates, I have gone into some of the detail of those issues, but I want to focus tonight on paragraph 3(1), which is on Executive formation, and to spend a little time outlining the impact of the lack of that Executive formation on my constituency, but also across Northern Ireland.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my party leader here at Westminster, articulated earlier the many issues that are suffering due to the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly and because the Northern Ireland Government have not been re-formed. The update in the report is very short because, since we last considered these reports, there is still no Northern Ireland Executive.

I was elected to represent the wonderful constituency of Belfast South just in the 2017 election, and it has been an incredible privilege to do so. In many ways, Belfast South is a thriving constituency. We have some of the best schools in Northern Ireland. We have some of the highest employment rates in not just Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates. At the last count, we had over 19,000 registered businesses. We have an incredibly diverse constituency, with many wonderful institutions, including the Lyric, many arts institutions, the Ulster Museum, Queen’s University and Stranmillis College, to name just a few. Relative to many other constituencies, mine is doing very well, and I am incredibly proud to represent it.

Like all constituencies, however, we still have challenges. The constituents I represent still have very real needs across a whole range of public services from health, education and infrastructure to worrying about bills and worrying about their businesses. I want to touch briefly on some of those issues, because they are the type of everyday issues that are not being articulated in Northern Ireland because of the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly. They are not being articulated in this place either, because of the nature of the debates. Debates on those issues tend not to include or extend to devolved issues, but they are the issues that are impacting on a day-to-day basis. I know that and my hon. Friends know that, because we listen to our constituents and we know the serious concerns they have. We know the serious detrimental impact those issues are having on their lives. I know that the Secretary of State and his team have been out and about as well, talking to constituents right across Northern Ireland.

I want to touch first on education. Education in Northern Ireland is under huge pressure. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took some evidence from a number of schools and headteachers. I went out and talked to schools—nursery schools, primary schools and post-primary schools—across my constituency. They are doing an incredible job at a very difficult time. We know that their budgets are under huge pressure. That is why the Democratic Unionist party, in the confidence and supply arrangement, secured additional money for education. We wanted to make sure that those additional funds went into much needed public services, not for one part of the community but for people right across the community. We knew that schools would be under pressure. We knew there were further projected cuts for schools, and we wanted to do everything we could to help every child in Northern Ireland succeed. It is my party that stood on that platform. No matter where a child comes from, or what their background or financial circumstances are, the DUP wants every child in Northern Ireland to succeed. We recognise that succeeding in education is the gateway to a much better life for people, their families and their grandchildren.

The other area under huge pressure in Northern Ireland on education is special educational needs. There have been a number of debates in this place about autism services and mental health needs, yet for Northern Ireland we have been starved of that debate because of the inability to get the Northern Ireland Executive back up and going. In Northern Ireland, we have some of the highest levels of mental health needs and that is also the case within schools. I speak to parents day in, day out. They are under huge pressure to try to get much needed help and support for their children. They know that their children need everything from getting a diagnosis to getting a statement to trying to get educational support for that child. The Education Authority needs more resources, both financial and in terms of professionals. Parents need more support in their fight to get what their child needs and schools need more resources to provide that support. These are the types of issues that are not being talked about in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party is committed to a fundamental review of special educational needs to ensure proper resources go into special educational needs for every child across all communities in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

Some 60% of the pupils who go to Clifton Special School, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), come from my constituency of Strangford. The issue is not just about resources for parents and pupils, but upgrading such schools so they can cope with the new workload. Disabled children have very complex needs, both educational and health. That is the predicament facing schools such as Clifton House in Bangor.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In my own constituency, we have a number of fantastic schools on the frontline, including Fleming Fulton, Glenveagh and Harberton. They are three fantastic schools in my constituency which do a huge amount of work. Other schools are also dealing with complex needs. I have reached out and spoken to them, and I understand the pressures they are under.

Moving on to health, in one respect we have been fortunate in Northern Ireland in that before Sinn Féin collapsed the Assembly, the Bengoa report, which talked about transformation, was agreed to, so we have a policy framework. However, let me be absolutely clear: these types of issues and pressures are not being articulated because there is no forum for this in Northern Ireland. Health-related matters do not fall to councils. There is no Northern Ireland Executive and this is a fully devolved matter, so it is rarely spoken about in detail in this forum, but we need health transformation in Northern Ireland.

We recognise that the current system is not fit for purpose. The Democratic Unionist party is absolutely committed to that transformation in a way that protects frontline services. We want to, and will, stand up for healthcare workers to ensure that they get proper remuneration for their hard work. Nurses, doctors, cleaners and the other staff in hospitals, including the administrative staff and consultants, are all working under huge pressure, and I pay tribute to them and the incredible work that they do in a system that is no longer fit for purpose, puts huge pressure on them and prevents them from getting the remuneration that they really deserve and that people really want to give.

We recognise that as the transformation is undertaken, we also need the additional resources to sort out things such as waiting lists. All Democratic Unionist party Members know how many constituents come in to see us who are sitting on waiting lists that are growing and growing, week by week, month by month. We want to get that investment in parallel with the much needed transformation, so that the money does not just go on transformation when people on the frontline are suffering. We need to reduce GP waiting times and get more GPs into the practices to help them to support our constituents.

I want to touch briefly on the business community. Businesses are rightly concerned about the proposal in relation to Brexit, but I do not want to talk about Brexit in any great detail today, because there will be plenty of other opportunities—and there have been opportunities—to do that. However, many of the issues for the business community in Northern Ireland are the same as those that businesses face across the United Kingdom. I have absolutely fantastic commercial areas in my constituency—everything from the Lisburn Road to Stranmillis Road, to Ormeau Road, to Finaghy Road, and there are many others across my constituency. They are fantastic areas with many small businesses where the business owners and staff are working incredibly hard under difficult circumstances. Our business rates are too high. Our businesses are struggling and they very much need this reform. I welcome the fact that there is a consultation out, but the Democratic Unionist party wants to do something fundamental to support the very many small businesses that are trying to make our economy work and make Northern Ireland thrive.

Our high streets are suffering. There was an announcement on the high streets fund across England and Wales, but we do not have that in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the head of the civil service asking him to use that money because Northern Ireland got a Barnett consequential. It got money from that announcement. Is it going to our high streets? No, but the Democratic Unionist party would absolutely prioritise supporting our high streets and those businesses and trying to make the very hearts of our communities, towns, villages and cities work.

I briefly want to mention the environment. I will not go into a huge amount of detail, but many people in Northern Ireland are really interested in this issue. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is aware of this, but Northern Ireland has one of the lowest levels of woodland cover of any region in the United Kingdom. We have on average 6% or 7% woodland cover. The average across the United Kingdom is 13%, and across the European Union, it is 38%, so Northern Ireland has the lowest percentage of woodland cover by far across the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland and the European Union.

I will conclude with a plea, because I genuinely feel that this needs to be addressed. I have put a proposal on the table: to mark the 100 years of Northern Ireland, I am proposing the creation of a project to increase significantly the amount of woodland cover. One way that we could do this is by planting a tree for every person alive across Northern Ireland and the border counties—approximately 2 million trees. That would bring our woodland cover up from about 7% to about 12% or 13%, which would be the UK average. That project could happen and has happened elsewhere. There are other big initiatives across the United Kingdom, and I ask the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to supporting that proposal.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 7

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I will endeavour to be as pithy as I can be, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the House for bringing this debate forward today. I expressed my concern just before the break—the adjournment or whatever we are calling it—that the Northern Ireland report debates had been contracted into a short period. It was woefully short, given the important issues we need to raise and discuss, so I welcome the fact that the Government have brought the debates back to the House today.

I am disappointed by the lack of representation across the Chamber, particularly on the Benches in front of me, as many people come to this House to talk about Northern Ireland in relation to Brexit and other matters. These are incredibly important issues, which, as Members from across the House have highlighted, touch on the most vulnerable in our society.

Many years ago, I sat in a room where I first heard the plea from victims and survivors of historical abuse for an investigation and inquiry into what had happened to them. Everybody in that room—there were senior politicians from across the parties, including Martin McGuinness and the right hon. Peter Robinson and officials and politicians—was struck by the pain and anguish of the victims and survivors of that abuse. The thing that stood out most in that discussion was the key line repeated by many victims: “We have not been listened to.” Some of the abuse took place many decades beforehand. They told the politicians and civil servants on that occasion, as they have many times since, that as children and young people they were not believed. They told them that as adults, first when they were struggling through the many challenges of their early adulthood and now, when many of them are older and facing a number of challenges with the ageing they are experiencing, they were not listened to or believed—this happened throughout their lifetime. They told them that they were demeaned, not just as children, but throughout their lives, in terms of the painful stories and experiences they needed to tell.

I knew from that first meeting that the then First Minister and the then Deputy First Minister genuinely felt an empathy with those victims. I was a policy adviser at that time, and they turned to me and the other civil servants and advisers in the room and tasked us with going away to do something to help and support the victims as swiftly as possible. During that period, despite all the other discussions, arguments and differences we may have had, all the political parties worked hard together—quickly—to put in the terms of reference. A lot of work went into that. I was part of the original project board, with civil servants, and we looked at many of the different experiences of inquiries from all over the world.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the late Sir Anthony Hart, the first judge I appeared before when he was the recorder of Belfast. He was a fearsome individual with a fearsome reputation, but he was keen on two things—he wanted things to be done effectively and efficiently. He was hard on the young solicitors and barristers who appeared before him, but for good reason, because at the heart of every case that he looked at was a victim who was going through a court system. He hated delay and unnecessary bureaucracy, and he brought those values with him. He was absolutely the right man for that job and I pay tribute to the incredible work he has done. When I have spoken to the many victims and survivors, they have all said the same: “Sir Anthony Hart listened to me. He made me feel valued and vindicated. He genuinely made this a victim-centred process, and that is exactly what we wanted.”

May I also pay tribute to the incredible team of officials, many of whom I worked with throughout that period and many of whom worked on after I left that policy adviser/special adviser role? They worked incredibly hard to get this inquiry up and going, and it was conducted incredibly efficiently and effectively by all the civil servants involved, led by the chair and the team around that. It will be a model for people to look at internationally.

One thing we did was to introduce, in legislation, a time limit for the inquiry, which is rare in these inquiries. We suggested it should be two and a half years, but with a possible extension of a further 12 months. Sir Anthony Hart said clearly that he was up for that challenge, and he fulfilled it. It was a time-limited inquiry and he produced the report on time, which is incredible.

What happened after that is deeply disappointing. As I have said in this House before, we always knew when the report was due, because of the time-limited nature of the inquiry. Sinn Féin knew when the report was due. We liaised periodically with the chair, who made it clear that there would not be delay and that he would be giving the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister the report. I pleaded with Sinn Féin colleagues. I said, “Look, if you have to collapse the Assembly, we need to do two things before you do that.” They were going to make that decision, with the resignation of the late Martin McGuiness. The first thing was to pass a budget for Northern Ireland. The second thing was to wait two weeks to allow this report to be received and agreed by the Executive, as that would have facilitated the recommendations being brought forward. They were not prepared to wait.

The serious question that needs to be asked is: what was accomplished by pulling down the Assembly two weeks earlier than it could have been brought down? Those two weeks could have transformed many of the issues in Northern Ireland. I say that without going into all the reasons or justifications for bringing the Assembly down, but I firmly believe that bringing it down two weeks before this report was due— Sinn Féin knew from the beginning of this inquiry when it was due—was wrong, and it left victims in a very vulnerable state.

Today, however, I want this contribution to be about the victims: like the inquiry, which was victim-centred, I want this contribution to be about them and not about the other parties and what happened in the past. I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to be brave, make a decision, and go ahead and do this swiftly, because the people who are missing out and suffering are the genuine victims and survivors, who were incredibly brave. They stood up and contributed to the inquiry. They told their stories, despite all the legacy of the decades of hurt from not being believed. We know, from all the evidence and from talking to people, that, for those individuals, telling their stories is incredibly painful, as it brings back everything they have been through. It is so hard for them to go into that institutional setting; despite all the things that the late Sir Anthony Hart did to make them feel comfortable, it must have been a challenging and difficult experience for them, and we must recognise that. After going through that—after their bravery—they have been left out there without the much-needed help and support that they require.

May I say, Secretary of State, that when we think about what happened, we see that these were young children? I listen to many, many of their stories. Many of them came from very challenging backgrounds. When they came into these institutions what they needed was love, dignity, comfort and support, but instead, as we see when we read that report, they got harshness and pain. They were demeaned and demoralised, starved and beaten.

Who in the House could not feel a genuine empathy for and desire to help those victims and survivors? This House has the power to do that. It has broken the convention in respect of legislating on devolved matters. I respectfully say to the Secretary of State that this is an important issue on which we are all in agreement, so please be brave. Please bring forward the legislation—and do it swiftly, because victims are suffering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that we are speaking about the Northern Ireland Executive formation and the reports flowing from that. The Secretary of State introduced his comments tonight by referring to the lack of an Assembly. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee emphasised that issue as well. I am trying to get the Assembly back, and I am outlining the way in which the Secretary of State could take active measures this evening by phoning the 90 Members of the Assembly and getting them back in the Assembly tomorrow morning. That could bring about the changes that the Secretary of State wants to see—that I want to see and that people in this place want to see—but I fear that that call will land on deaf ears. I hope that he decides to do that, and I hope that he takes up that chance.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his remarks. I believe that he is passionate and that he does care about the victims of institutional abuse. Indeed, I know, following on from the meetings that he had with them in August, that many of them meet regularly with Government Members, and they reported back to us the enthusiasm and the genuine concern that he has. I happen to think that it is important that we put that on the record, but it is also right and proper that he is pushed on a few areas. I ask him to give us a time, to give us a specific date and to tell us when this will happen. He should not let this slip any further. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) made the point in her excellent speech that we cannot allow this slippage to continue. These people are dying. These victims need immediate help and there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from providing that.

I wish to leave some very specific questions with the Secretary of State: who is ultimately going to pay the compensation? The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) made the crucial point that this abuse was carried out vastly during a period of direct rule. Therefore, the responsibility and the onus must fall on this place to come up with the compensation. The Northern Ireland budget could not cope with—probably—the extent of that payment.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that important point. It is undoubtedly the case, when one reads that report, that there is a direct rule implication—an implication for this place. Does he agree that there is also a significant obligation on the institutions, including the Roman Catholic Church? They have contributed to compensation schemes in relation to these inquiries in all other jurisdictions as far as I am aware, so does he agree that the Secretary of State should engage in those early conversations with the institutions to ensure that that contribution is made?

[Ian Paisley]

I am more than happy with that. Indeed, I have spoken in this House in the past about that very point. One of the ways that this could be addressed expeditiously is by the institutions actually making amends—by way of payment, by way of apology and by way of an actual practical measure. I think that, without doubt, that is the case. There should be something that the Secretary of State can do to facilitate such a process. I know that there are ways that he can facilitate that, and I encourage him to take them up. There is a crucial point here. Ultimately, if the Government pay money in compensation, they may, later on, get that money back through the institutions. They should be pursuing those institutions for the abuse inflicted on those innocent victims.

Professor Patricia Lundy, who gave evidence to our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on these issues, spelled out what she believed the costs could run to, and they are staggering. It is essential that the Government grapple with this issue immediately. There should be no surprises when they come to legislating. We do not want to have to delay legislation further, because we have now discovered what the costs are. The costs are mammoth. The costs will have to be dealt with.

May I also speak for some of the survivor groups? All of those who have given us evidence and spoken to us directly have said that they run their organisations on a shoestring. Clearly, they will have to keep up the momentum by informing their people, encouraging their people and being a shoulder for their people. Therefore, some sort of assistance in the interim period—until the legislation is actually enacted—would be very beneficial indeed. Finally, it would be brilliant if the Secretary of State published the Bill, put it out there and brought it into this place so that we had the opportunity to enact it without any further delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in all the discussions at the time of the inquiry—when we looked at the inquiry in the Republic of Ireland and inquiries elsewhere, where the institutions made a significant contribution—it was the clear understanding of all parties that the institutions would be requested and required to give their contribution as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, that was always the understanding. I note that the report says that research is being undertaken into how the issue has been handled elsewhere. I would like the Secretary of State not just to research, but to tell us what approaches have been made to the bodies at which the finger of blame was pointed for this abuse. Is it simply that there will be an academic study of what is to be done, or have approaches actually been made? If they have, what has the response been?

The report says that there will be a mediation mechanism to decide how much should be paid by the various institutions and that the parties will have to submit themselves to a final arbitration. All that is fine—of course we have to have a mechanism—but there is no indication that civil servants in Northern Ireland are making approaches to the institutions, knowing what the view of the Executive was on this matter; and it is important that that is done.

I have one final point, which has been made time and again today. I do not believe that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be up and running on 21 October because Sinn Féin, which wanted some of the changes that have been put through this House and that have a date attached to them, will not want the institutions back up and running for all that to be taken back into the Assembly and for the debate to be reopened. That was a fatal flaw in the Labour party’s decision to interfere with a devolved issue and to dabble in the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Labour Members were warned about this, but they ignored that warning, and now they lament that we cannot get this issue dealt with as far as the victims are concerned.

The Assembly will not be up and running because, for those who wanted the changes to abortion and gay marriage legislation, there is every incentive not to have it up and running. They are showing no indication that they will even engage in talks. It is important that the Secretary of State recognises that and ignores any evidence he might be getting from the Northern Ireland Office about what might annoy Sinn Féin. He should be bringing to this House legislation that compensates and gives some redress—as much as money ever can give redress—to that individual who met me in a street in Belfast and told me how, as a boy, he was abandoned, he was not listened to and he was hurt, and how he still carries that hurt today.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2)

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I think my right hon. Friend, who has spoken very persuasively on this issue for many years, makes some important points, but I return to the fact that the Government are looking at all these issues in our cross-Whitehall review.

In Northern Ireland, just as in England and Wales, prosecutorial decisions are made independently of Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is not under the superintendence of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a consultative relationship with the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, but the former cannot be compelled by the latter. This feature of the relationship between these key figures is an important component of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland, and it is not within the UK Government’s powers to direct the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Members will be aware that what is central in these cases is not how an individual came to have a weapon, but what they did with it, and it is for the courts, not the Government, to determine innocence and guilt.

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

Does the Secretary of State accept that in Northern Ireland we have an abnormal situation, as all state-related deaths have been referred to the criminal justice system for examination? That does not happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so in those exceptional and abnormal circumstances, we need to find a solution to support those who served this country on the front line in Northern Ireland during the dark days of the troubles.

[Julian Smith]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but I return to the fact that the ways to achieve the sorts of things that she is discussing are much more complex.

The Government are committed to finding practical, sustainable and workable solutions to establish an improved system that works better for all and ensures that soldiers and former police officers who risk their lives to maintain peace and order and to keep others safe are treated fairly.

On abortion law, if an Executive is not formed by 21 October, the Government have a duty to make the necessary regulations. As I have set out, it is the Government’s preference that any questions of reform on these important, sensitive and devolved issues are considered in the right place by a restored Executive and a functioning Assembly. However, we recognise that a majority of MPs want to ensure that reform happens if we continue to see an absence of devolved government. From 22 October, the specific criminal law in Northern Ireland will fall away, and a criminal moratorium on prosecutions will come into place. I have instructed my Department, working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Government Equalities Office, to develop an appropriate new legal framework that will be in operation by 31 March 2020 if that proves to be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and pay tribute to the enormous amount of work she did on that important issue; she knows that she had my support in that endeavour. She points to another example of where, if we are to believe that “Conservative and Unionist”—Unionist is the key bit—is more than just a word on a badge or on the ballot paper we need to step up to the plate to demonstrate that we are serious. She draws proper attention to another issue where ordinary families in Northern Ireland are not able to rely on the support and the interventions of the state that others have. We have an active devolution settlement in Scotland and in Wales and the Westminster Parliament here; it is only Northern Ireland that, apart from a little bit of ad hoc direct rule, is subject to civil service managerial governance, because there is no political impetus.

I say very clearly to the two main protagonist parties, which have the fate of devolution for Northern Ireland in their hands, that if they do not step up to the plate pretty damn soon other parties will point to them and say, “You’ve tried them, they have failed, you now have to give us a chance.”

[Emma Little Pengelly]

If the hon. Gentleman has a discussion with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his right hon. Friend will inform him that the Democratic Unionist party has put suggestion after suggestion on the table. I personally have put forward a number of suggestions. Sinn Féin remains adamant that it is not going back into government despite many genuine attempts by my party to get back in and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It feels somewhat absurd that there is so much to say today regarding the reports, but so little time in which to say it. It is deeply frustrating because the people and representatives of Northern Ireland have so many things that they need to air and discuss, and that is being denied. We are currently in a situation of political turmoil across the United Kingdom, but that turmoil and turbulence are even worse in Northern Ireland due to the fact that there are no Northern Ireland institutions.

I want briefly to reiterate the offer that the Democratic Unionist party has made to Sinn Féin. Because of the exceptional circumstances that we find ourselves in, that offer is to go back into government immediately, not just with blind faith, but by agreement that we will enter into government and discuss the issues that we are currently discussing in this talks process and cannot get resolution on; and that, by agreement, if there is no resolution, then the institutions will fall. That offer is there to Sinn Féin, and we ask all political parties to urge them to take it.

There is no risk in the offer for Sinn Féin. We could get back into government, get on with talking about these issues and deal with the historical institutional abuse payments, the much-needed funds for severely injured victims, health, education and the real policies having an impact on people across Northern Ireland every day. That is the offer and I believe that it is an absolutely reasonable one. I ask Sinn Féin to consider it seriously, and everybody in this House and beyond to urge them to take it up. We live in exceptional times; we should be doing something exceptional to try to resolve the situation.

Draft Historical Abuse Bill (Northern Ireland)

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I devoutly hope so. The talks have been ongoing—until last night—and I devoutly hope that they will continue. There is a sense of commitment and determination, but there is still further to go. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that had there been a Stormont Assembly, most people here would have expected the MLAs in the Assembly and the Executive to have sorted this out long since, given the horrific nature of the abuse that she rightly pointed out, and that that urgency would therefore have resulted in answers and a redress scheme well before now. That is a good example of why getting the Assembly back up and running is so important.

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

I thank the Minister for his response today and add my voice strongly to the calls for the Bill to be moved forward as swiftly as possible. There is deep frustration about how this matter has been handled over the last number of years. When we look at such processes all over the world—particularly involving redress—we see that there is a significant contribution from the institutions that are found to have liability. That issue has been raised here. There is concern that those conversations have not yet commenced with the institutions, as far as I am aware. A significant number of the bodies mentioned in the report are non-governmental organisations. Will the Minister outline what he is intending to do? All parties and the all-party group on this matter agreed that this process should commence as soon as possible and that there must be a contribution from the other institutions to help to support victims.

[John Penrose]

I understand the concern around this matter. Given the need to move this process at speed, we have mainly been focusing on getting the commissioner and the redress scheme outline legislation in-house, and we are going through it at speed now. At the moment, therefore, that issue has not been at the front of priorities. I take the point that it will need to be addressed, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Lady to confirm how we might take that forward. I do not want to make any commitments on what might be the right answer for that at this stage, but I hear the concerns that she and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raised. This clearly needs to be thought through.

Pensions for Severely Disabled Victims (Northern Ireland)

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the eligibility criteria for the pension for severely injured victims.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this urgent question and to clear up some worrying misconceptions that have been circulating over the weekend. Before I do, the more observant here today will have noticed that I am not the Secretary of State. She is at Stormont, where discussions are ongoing. I am sure we all wish those discussions every success.

I am happy to confirm that it remains the Government’s position that, while it is right and proper to provide a pension for victims of troubles-related terrorist incidents, it should not become a pension for terrorists. There is no moral equivalence between a bystander badly injured in a terrorist explosion through no fault of their own, and the people who manufactured the bomb, placed the bomb and detonated the bomb. I therefore happily confirm to the House that under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, which we debated last week and the week before that, if the Stormont Executive is not reformed by 21 October we will bring forward regulations to ensure a victims’ payment scheme is in place in Northern Ireland by the end of May next year. The eligibility for the scheme will reflect the basic principle I have just outlined.

There will be many important and sensitive details to work out. We will do that in discussion with the Northern Ireland political parties as the regulations are written and developed, but the foundations will be as I have described. I am delighted to have the opportunity to put that on the record here today.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

First, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question—it is very much appreciated. I can, with confidence, extend the thanks of the many, many victims in Northern Ireland, who were deeply distressed by the recommendation over last week and the weekend. It proposed that the person who went out to murder, maim and cause hurt would also be eligible for this pension if in doing so they injured themselves.

Sadly, an appalling moral corruption lies at the heart of victims-related issues in Northern Ireland: the repugnant proposition that equates a victim with their victim makers. The hallmark of any peace process should be how we treat our victims. Sadly, too often—time and again—victims are being asked to compromise; to get much-needed help and support, they have to facilitate and allow those victim makers to get it also. That is fundamentally wrong.

Many challenging and difficult issues relate to the legacy in Northern Ireland, but we must never lose sight of what is right and what is clearly wrong. Therefore, I warmly welcome the clear statement from the Minister today that eligibility for this special pension will not extend to those victim makers—those terrorists who planted the bombs. This has caused deep distress for many, many years, particularly during the last week. Will the Minister outline when those people will be excluded? What immediate next steps is he intending to take to bring in this much-needed pension swiftly, and give those victims and survivors the help they need?

[John Penrose]

First, I am delighted to hear that we are so strongly on the same wavelength. I refer not just to the hon. Lady and myself; as she rightly pointed out, this is a widely shared view on all sides of the community, both in Northern Ireland and, more broadly, right the way across the UK. I am glad that we are in the same place on this issue.

The hon. Lady asked about the timetable. Their lordships are considering the final stages of the Bill and so, technically, it has not quite cleared Parliament yet. Once it does and it is law, we will, in effect, work backwards from the due date at the end of May—it will then be laid out in statute—with, if necessary, a series of discussions, consultations and whatever it may be to get the necessary regulations in place in time. In the meantime, we will be making sure we have time to have conversations properly and carefully on these extremely sensitive, carefully approached issues, which will need to be addressed to get this right.

Points of Order

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) is satisfied. I thank the occupants of the Treasury Bench.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill that we have just debated contains clauses inviting the Government to make progress towards the implementation of a “severely injured” pension for victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There has been considerable distress in Northern Ireland because of concerns about the criteria, and a report has suggested that terrorists who went out to murder and maim and ended up injuring themselves may be eligible for such a pension. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to debate those issues today owing to the nature of the proceedings. While I welcome the comments of Lord Duncan in the other place, may I ask whether there will be any opportunities—perhaps next week—for these matters to be aired, debated and hopefully answered in this House? I should be very much obliged.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, to which the answer is yes: there could well be such opportunities. The hon. Lady would not expect me to commit myself now—on the hoof, if you will—in respect of the form that such an opportunity might take, but we have four sitting days next week before we rise for the summer recess. This is a matter of the utmost importance, and, indeed, considerable sensitivity. In the short time during which I have come to know the hon. Lady, I have come to be aware of how dexterous she is in the use of parliamentary time, and if she wishes to take her opportunities, I think that she will not be disappointed.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I am one of the signatories to amendment (a) and am therefore rising to support it and the Lords amendments. This is, in fact, the first time that I have spoken on Northern Ireland matters in 14 years in this House, but let me put on record my huge affection for Northern Ireland. I have many friends who live in Northern Ireland and I regularly visit. In fact, let me put it on the record that I bought my first ever lottery ticket on the day of the lottery launch in Ballymena. As Culture Minister, I have visited Derry/Londonderry, which I am pleased to say was the first UK capital of culture, and of course I have visited Belfast many times, not least the Titanic Quarter which has become a fantastic creative hub for Northern Ireland and is where “Game of Thrones” was filmed.

I should also put it on record that it is a matter of profound regret to me that in the past eight weeks of leadership hustings, the two leadership candidates have not visited a single museum, art centre, theatre, architecture firm, design company or film studio, or indeed barely mentioned the fantastic success of the creative industries not only in Northern Ireland, but in the whole of the UK.

One reason why this is the first time I have spoken on Northern Ireland matters is that of course Northern Ireland matters are meant to be devolved. I therefore have enormous sympathy with the points that have been made by the members of the Democratic Unionist party and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), but the fact remains that there is no Executive in residence in Northern Ireland, and there has not been for some considerable time, which is why we are debating Northern Ireland matters—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I have got something wrong, given Mr Speaker’s expression. On the issues of abortion and, indeed, of equal marriage, I have to say to my friends in the DUP that if these matters do come up for debate in this House—and they were conscience votes and free votes—they should not be surprised at all if English Members and Members from other parts of the Union express a view. We also know that those amendments have been put down in such a way that no legislation, no change to the law, will happen if a devolved Executive return to Government.

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

Although the right hon. Gentleman references that there is no devolved Assembly currently in Northern Ireland, what we do know is the will of that Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until this point, the Northern Ireland Assembly has never voted, across all the parties, to liberalise abortion laws in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should not require more than another couple of minutes.

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.