Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Bob Blackman

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I wish to address new clauses 55 and 42 and, if time permits, new clause 90. Hon. Members will agree that clarity is crucial when talking about the proper functioning of the House, particularly when we cover immensely sensitive subjects such as abortion and the ending of human life. I want to clarify something that was earlier in dispute, which is whether the decriminalisation of abortion, as sought by new clause 55, also means its deregulation and the loss of all legal safeguards. Changing the law means changing regulations. The central and implacable legal fact of new clause 55 is that repealing the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and relevant offences under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, will immediately undo all the safeguards provided by the Abortion Act 1967.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) so soberly and succinctly stated in the first part of this debate, new clause 55 would sweep away all current legal safeguards and protections, not only for the unborn child, but many that protect women. The 1967 Act would, in effect, be void, leaving England and Wales with one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world.

Let me briefly remind Members what those safeguards involve. They are not obstructions by opponents of abortion; they are crucial and vital protections against clear and present dangers. The safeguards prevent abortion simply on the basis of sex and because the baby will be born a girl, or indeed a boy. They ensure that the freedom of health professionals to conscientiously object is protected, and they prevent abortion right up until birth, even though many premature babies are born and survive and thrive, every week.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) failed to explain how any of those serious threats to our society and culture would remain illegal. Never once has she denied that her new clause would allow abortion up to birth—something many of my constituents have rallied against in recent days, as is true of constituents across the country. I have received more emails and calls about new clause 55 than I have about any other measure since I was elected to the House 11 years ago. The right hon. Lady may argue that abortion will remain regulated by different medical bodies in the country, but those bodies cannot make legislation. They cannot pass laws or send the crucial messages that our current abortion law sends, namely that sex selective abortion is wrong, that conscientious objection is valid, and that abortion without any time limit would be a gross injustice in a humane society. Abortion under the regulation of changeable medical bodies that issue only guidelines and never laws can never be recommended.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful to contribute to this debate. On Second Reading I highlighted that the Bill, large as it is, contains about five clauses that apply to Northern Ireland, and we are supportive of them. Considering that we just heard from the Health and Social Care Secretary, who outlined our roadmap to freedom, I am disappointed that after Committee, the Bill is not in a better place when it comes to protest. For a party that prides itself on libertarian values and freedom in our country to curtail protests because they are noisy, inconvenient or impact on those around them, shows that the right balance has not yet been struck.

I wish to speak in favour of new clauses 44 to 50, tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Indeed, I commend her for tabling them. The law has operated successfully in Northern Ireland for four years. Those important provisions were brought forward by my colleague in the other place, Lord Morrow. They are working in Northern Ireland, and I hope that after the conclusion of Report, they are brought forward again. I encourage the Minister to look at those provisions. I understand she is engaging with the right hon. Lady, and I hope we can pick up this conversation again.

I have mentioned to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that I have considered some ire, having signed her new clauses on human trafficking and sexual exploitation, given the amendment that rests in new clause 55; she knows that I could never support new clause 55. I do see the dichotomy between bringing forward—[Interruption.] I wave back, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clauses 44 to 50 would take away the power from the powerful in support of the most vulnerable, and that is why I struggle with new clause 55: it would do the reverse.

Equitable Life

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Bob Blackman

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

That is clearly a matter for court action—for the Crown Prosecution Service and others—but it is a further scandal that no one has suffered anything other than the people who saved the money in the first place.

May I set out for the House’s benefit the categories of individuals who suffered the unfortunate loss? First, there are the pre-’92 trapped annuitants. Bizarrely—I have never understood this—the Government drew a line at 1 September 1992 for the people who would receive compensation. Those who invested before 1 September 1992 were excluded from the compensation scheme, yet they are the most elderly and often the most vulnerable individuals who are owed money. Someone who took out a pension policy on 31 August 1992 got not a penny, but those who took a policy out on 1 September 1992 could end up with full compensation. That seems completely arbitrary. Many of these people are particularly vulnerable. Some 9,200 of those individuals are still alive and it is clear that they should receive full compensation.

The cost of providing full compensation for those victims will be less than £100 million. The key point is that within the compensation scheme, there is a contingency, and that does not need to be used now because the forecasts are that the payment for those who were receiving 100% benefit will be 11% down, so the additional funds and the contingency are not required. The Government could therefore take the decision to pay in full those most elderly victims who need assistance.

Post-’92, there are of course two categories: those who received 100% compensation; and those who have received 22.4% compensation. Why 22.4%? That is an arbitrary figure. I believe that every victim of this scandal should receive the full amount of money.

In the various statements that were made to the different Select Committees and to this House, the Government accepted that the total bill would be £4.3 billion. That figure was later corrected to £4.1 billion. However, the Government have allocated only £1.5 billion. They clearly have a debt of honour, and I have three basic asks for them today. First, given the position of the pre-1992 trapped annuitants and the figures that I have set out, will the Government now take action to compensate fully those elderly individuals who are extremely frail? The money will almost certainly go straight back into the Treasury and the economy in a way that we would all welcome.

Secondly, will the Government face up to the fact that although the scheme is closed to new entrants, they are going to be paying out to the victims of the scandal for some considerable time? Will they therefore top up that money, possibly over a phased period, as has been suggested? Perhaps that period could be five years. Most of those victims will be coming up to retirement soon, and they need certainty that they are going to get some money. The key point here is that this would not immediately cost the Treasury the £2.6 billion that would be required, because this could be phased over a longer period to top up the pension schemes of those in operation.

My third ask, which is equally crucial, relates to the fact that the Government now know exactly who is involved, because the scheme is closed to new entrants. They know the names, the addresses, the national insurance numbers and the total amount that those people are owed, and that data needs to be retained. I ask the Minister to give a guarantee that data will be retained and not destroyed, so that when the Treasury eventually owns up to this and accepts that it has to pay full compensation, we do not have to go back to square one to get all the data back.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way just one more time, because I know that the Deputy Speaker is looking at me and expecting me to finish.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think it is important to reinforce his three asks. I met an 87-year-old constituent on Friday afternoon who was distraught and in tears over how he had been left as a result of the Equitable Life scandal, but he was given hope when he got a note from the action group to say that today’s debate was happening. Given the hon. Gentleman’s three key asks, and given the political willingness right across the House and around the country to resolve this issue, does he agree that the Government must ensure that this will not be another false dawn for those who look to us most?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention.

I would like to sum up by thanking the Equitable Members Action Group and the policyholders who have suffered for so long. I also want to make it clear to the House that things have changed. When we were elected, it was basically only Conservative Members, and some colleagues from the opposite side, who were supporting justice for Equitable Life policyholders. The all-party parliamentary group now has more than 100 members, from the Labour side in particular, who now recognise that this is a debt of honour, so this is not just confined to these Benches. The reality is that if the Government fail to honour the debt, further action will clearly have to follow and we will force the Treasury to take action.