Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

Let me join the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in expressing the whole House’s condolences to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the tragedy that her family have suffered today.

It is a huge pleasure to close the final debate on the first King’s Speech. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) on his excellent maiden speech. Anyone who takes a seat off the SNP has my fervent good wishes. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That is clearly not a universally popular view.

It is the first duty of the state to secure the safety and security of its citizens. That is why the Government have delivered record ever police numbers across England and Wales, as my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) referenced. We have 3,500 more police officers than we have ever had before at any time in history, and those record numbers are delivering results. According to the crime survey, overall crime, measured like for like, is 54% lower now than it was in 2010. That is to say that the Labour Government in which the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), sat presided over crime levels that were double those that prevail today. Violence is down by 52%, burglary is down by 57% and vehicle crime is down by 39%.

The subject of the debate includes fighting violence against women and girls: a topic that I am sure the whole House can get behind. I am proud that in the last 13 years the Government have: legislated to criminalise stalking in 2012; passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; criminalised coercive and controlling behaviour; created a non-fatal strangulation offence; and outlawed upskirting and revenge porn. The previous Labour Government failed to do all those things during their 13 years in office.

There is more to do. The conviction rates for rape and serious sexual offences need to be higher. I am glad that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) acknowledged that Operation Soteria is making progress, with police referrals in the quarter to June up by 206% compared with 2019, Crown Prosecution Service charges up by 145% and Crown court receipts up by 171%. There is a lot more to do, but that is all heading rapidly in the right direction.

Some specific questions arose, which, for the sake of clarity, I would like to answer. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, asked about measures to ban zombie knives and machetes. Those require secondary legislation, and I can confirm that the Government will bring forward the relevant statutory instruments in the very near future, in addition to the measures announced in the King’s Speech to double the sentence for supplying a knife to an under-18 and to double the sentence for possessing a knife with intent to cause harm.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) mentioned antisocial behaviour; come next April, every single police force in England and Wales will have funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols. Where they have been trialled, they have almost immediately reduced antisocial behaviour by around 30%. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about the Government’s response to Hillsborough, which they and many Members of Parliament take very seriously. I can confirm that the Government are planning to offer their full reply to Bishop James Jones’s report on 6 December. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and others will be briefed in advance if they wish to be. The duty of candour in policing will be introduced in clause 73 of the Criminal Justice Bill.

On Gaza, which many Members have spoken about, let us keep in mind that 1,400 innocent civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by terrorists, and over 200 people remain held hostage. As the Prime Minister has set out repeatedly, this Government support humanitarian pauses to ensure that aid can get to civilians in Gaza, given the difficult circumstances. This Government have dramatically increased humanitarian aid, having provided £30 million-worth, and 51 tonnes have been sent in already. Of course, much more is required.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am afraid that I must finish up.

We are also working actively with international partners, including President Sisi of Egypt, to make sure the Rafah border crossing, which I have visited, is opened more to allow critical aid in. In order to ensure that civilians in Gaza are protected, our Government are actively engaging with the Government of Israel to ensure that they obey international law and redouble their efforts to protect civilians in Gaza. That is the humane and civilised thing to do, and this Government will continue to call for that.

However, a ceasefire with Hamas in place cannot be just. Hamas have said that they intend to destroy Israel, and that they would once again perpetrate atrocities like those committed on 7 October. They continue to hold hostages, including children and British citizens, and they continue to fire rockets into Israel. To ask Israel to cease firing unilaterally would not be fair or just. In order to have a just peace and a lasting, permanent ceasefire, we need a two-state solution with a sovereign and recognised Palestinian state on the west bank and in Gaza, guaranteeing their security and the security of Israel alike. All of us in this House and beyond should redouble our efforts to bring about that two- state solution, and to bring about the peace we saw in the aftermath of the Oslo accords, passed in 1993. That shows there is a path—it is difficult but it can be trodden. Only with a just and lasting peace can we see a just and lasting ceasefire.

I commend the King’s Speech and the Government’s legislative programme to the House. It will take this country forward and it deserves the support of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am not presenting my views per se; I am presenting the views of the petitioner, and I will go on to discuss how things would work. That is what we have to discuss. The petition presents a particular view and, although I agree with much of that view—not that that is relevant—it is how it would work, as he rightly points out, that we are discussing. It is therefore important that we sit in this Chamber and discuss it, but I thank him for his contribution.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is there not something fundamentally naive about a petition that attempts to juxtapose the legal system of the United Kingdom with the very different constitutional and legal system in the United States of America on the basis of fear, misinformation and media reportage, rather than on the basis of fact?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I fundamentally disagree with those comments. As a woman, to see what has happened in America does give me fear. I do not believe that there is a great amount of misinformation, but I do believe that where we get our information from—the hon. Gentleman raises a valid point—is very, very important. We must not stay in the echo chambers that I spoke of at the beginning of my speech. We must discuss and debate, which is what is so good about this opportunity and the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the aftercare of women who choose or choose not to have a termination. That is something that I feel strongly about—it may be years down the line that someone needs that support, and that support is lacking. I agree with her on that point, and it is something that we need to discuss further.

The threat of prosecution is a real fear; it is a fear that also deters doctors from wanting to enter this fundamental area of women’s healthcare. We are pleased to see early medical abortions being safely offered by GPs in other community settings, as it is in other countries. The fact that all non-hospital-based services must be specifically licensed and approved by the Secretary of State can be a barrier to improving access. Women who are unable to travel to clinics because of distance, personal circumstances —maybe coercive relationships—and medical conditions are poorly served by the current framework. If they take matters into their own hands by accessing pills online, they risk prosecution and prison. To talk of prosecution in these circumstances might seem laughable to some, but a recent Sunday Times investigation found that 52 women since 2015 have been reported to the police for allegedly breaking abortion laws.

I spoke to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and it is aware of multiple instances where the existing law criminalising abortion has been used against women who have ended their own pregnancy. Some of the examples given include a migrant woman in Oxford in 2021 who obtained and self-administered medication in a failed attempt to end her own pregnancy. When she was taken to hospital, the doctors performed a successful emergency C-section. Seemingly, they then reported her to the police because they found the remnants of medication in her vagina. She is now a parent to a toddler but is still being prosecuted for the attempted procurement of a miscarriage.

In London last year, a woman was admitted to hospital in need of a surgical procedure to empty her uterus after a stillbirth at 24 weeks as a result of abortion care sought within the formal healthcare system. While she was on the ward post procedure, she was arrested by the police. She was taken to a police station and kept in a police cell for 36 hours.

I cannot imagine any woman or girl ever wanting to be in this situation. When a little girl is growing up, she thinks about her lovely family and the children she is going to have. She says, “By the time I am 24, I am going to be married and have 2.3 children. I am going to live this life.” Women have hopes and dreams, and when they find themselves in this situation it is devastating to them, because they do not want to be in the situation and to be treated like that. I feel very strongly that it is really important to have this debate.

[Ian Paisley]

I actually think the hon. Member is absolutely right about the sheer compassion that this issue has to command. There were something like 800,000 pregnancies in the United Kingdom last year. I think that in the past seven or eight years 17 people have been brought up on the issue the hon. Member has identified, and only two have been charged. We are dealing with such a limited, narrow area—it is not widespread—and we need to keep that sense of proportion. It is important that the hon. Member has put those matters on the agenda.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

To be frank, we should have decriminalisation. I do not believe there should be one or two or that any woman should be made to feel like that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

How many?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

It is very difficult. [Interruption.] The hon. Member knows that we will disagree but, fundamentally, the fact that we can have this debate is the most important thing. I have to move on because we just will not agree, but it is important that everybody’s views are heard.

A 15-year-old girl was investigated by the police after a stillbirth at 28 weeks and accused of having an illegal abortion. Her phone and laptop were confiscated during her GCSE exams and she was driven to self-harm by the year-long investigation. Those are moments in a person’s life—in a woman’s life—that have been really impacted. The investigation concluded only when the coroner found that the pregnancy had ended as a result of natural causes. Imagine someone going through that while going through their GCSEs, with their whole life ahead of them.

This is the reality of criminalisation for the women investigated: their lives are being picked apart, they are being treated like criminals and it causes huge disruption. They do not feel safe in accessing medical services and their trust in the health service is undermined. These are often vulnerable women—even children—in desperate situations and with complicated medical histories or mental health problems. Because of the approach of the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than being provided with support in the moment these women face a terrifying journey of criminalisation.

We talk about choice when it comes to abortion, but those who are currently empowered to make choices are not the women who need the services but the police, who chose to investigate, and the CPS, which decides to prosecute. The current law takes fundamental decisions about an individual’s healthcare and hands it to the state. What is most concerning is that the law as it stands could be overturned by the Government of the day without a vote in Parliament.

This is where we perhaps need to look at the position of the current Cabinet and their views on a woman’s ability to access reproductive healthcare, because we can see that the issue is far from settled. I just want to point this out for the record. The Prime Minister has abstained on all votes relating to abortion in England since becoming an MP. That includes the votes on buffer zones and early medical abortion at home—the telemedicine we saw this year.

The Chancellor has been vocal about his desire to halve the time limit in which women can have abortions from 24 weeks to 12 weeks, even breaking the Whip. We say it is a matter of conscience, so I understand. The Home Secretary also voted against telemedicine being made permanent and the legal enforcement of buffer zones in 2022. We need to think about these views. It is right that Caitlin and the more than 150,000 other signatories to the petition are concerned, because if we look at our Parliament, we see that there is a risk of it happening. I totally understand Caitlin’s point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he is dealing with families where that is a possibility, prosecuting a woman who is being asked to have a sex-selective abortion, rather than supporting her or recognising what is happening, is not the way forward. The cases set out so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower show why decriminalisation is a very live issue. Although it is the 21st century, this country is still prosecuting women for having miscarriages and threatening them with investigation for a healthcare issue. Rather than recognising what other pressures might be in their lives and supporting them, we are criminalising those women, as women were criminalised in the 1800s with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I wager that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be on the side of arguing that a piece of legislation that put abortion at the same level as setting fire to this place or indeed murder would be the right way forward.

Right now, the penalty under that legislation is lifetime imprisonment. There may be some people who are comfortable with that, but many of us, who believe that when a woman is seeking healthcare, she deserves our support, compassion and tolerance, are not. For those of us who believe that we should be equals under the law, the question is whether the hon. Gentleman would accept being denied the basic right to decide what happens to his body in a particular circumstance, and for that decision to be taken by two other people who could give him that option only if they agreed that he would go mad or lose his life if he did not have it. I wager that he would not find that acceptable if it was perhaps about having a vasectomy.

[Ian Paisley]

Under the new dispensation that the hon. Member is arguing for, how would she propose to deal with, say, a very difficult case, such as the one brought to prosecution, namely that of Sarah Catt? The judge in that case said that it was not involuntary manslaughter or indeed an offence save murder. How would the hon. Member propose to deal under the new dispensation with a difficult case that the law would ultimately throw up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank you, Sir Charles, for calling me to speak, and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the way in which she introduced the petition. It was obvious to most that the hon. Member may not have agreed with everything in the petition—and that places a person in a difficult circumstance when introducing a petition—but I thank her none the less for the gracious way in which she introduced it.

This debate is about the right to an abortion being uniquely enshrined in law in the United Kingdom via a Bill of Rights. It is so unique that something that destroys, not protects, should be put in a Bill of Rights. We need to see this in that light, because we normally bring in laws that have a declaratory positive framework. This has a negative framework. I say that with all true compassion because, as was said in the House, no one wants to see a situation where a woman feels she has to have an abortion or that an abortion is her only way out, but having something enshrined in a Bill of Rights and framed in that new constitutional dispensation would be totally abhorrent to how law should be made in the United Kingdom.

Many of my constituents who have spoken to me about this matter in advance of the debate see it as fundamentally wrong and many have expressed that it is fundamentally evil to create law on the issue of life because it is such a fraught matter, and it is important that that point of view is listened to. Many have talked about the international legal position. The European convention on human rights, which, at best, will be the main template on which a UK Bill of Rights—if it is ever drawn up—will be based, does not enshrine the right to an abortion or to give an abortion. It does not touch on that matter at all for the obvious reasons I have already stated: it is not its place to do so. This is a matter of domestic law, and for the rights that many people on the other side of the argument are seeking to protect, I would go as far as to say that those rights are stronger under our British constitutional system of domestic law than they would be under a rights-based type of law on the matter.

The debate has been shrouded from time to time—not in this Chamber, but outside it in arriving at this petition—in misinformation. We saw the social media issues. In fact, TikTok had to take down some comments. People were being falsely driven to sign the petition on the basis of misinformation. Of course, I still think the debate would have come about, and we should not run away from the issue. I agree with hon. Members, for all different sorts of reasons, that it is important that the debate takes place, but it should not be brought to the House because of misinformation, by a social media campaign, or as a result of a vanity project by someone who wants to clutch to a moment of fame on this matter. That is not the reason we should be doing this; we should be doing it for the right reasons.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The whole ethos of the Petitions Committee, and the intent of the petitioner—she is sitting in Public Gallery behind the hon. Member, if he would like to speak to her after the debate—is not about that. When we had the debate on assisted dying, there were accusations against groups and organisations. That is not what the Petitions Committee is about. It is not misinformation; it is about where people choose to get their information from. The fact that we are here shows that the Petitions Committee is working, and that a person’s voice can be heard in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I think the hon. Member maybe misheard me, because I was not challenging the right to have the debate. I was challenging the misinformation on social media that encouraged people to falsely sign the petition. If the debate is so positive, there should be no negativity behind encouraging people to sign it. The word “ethos” is very interesting; its Greek origins show that it should actually be about an ethic. It should be something that has character to it, not something that is denuded of character and strength. I think the hon. Member misheard what I was getting at and the point I was making.

This lays bare how wrong it is—and the falsehood and naivety involved—to bring a debate to this House and try to shape our laws based on experiences of the American legal constitutional system. If we juxtapose them, it just does not work. We have a parliamentary democracy and statute law, versus the written constitution of the United States of America and all the issues that flow from that.

There is then another layer set upon that juxtaposition in saying that this is about fear because of what happened with Roe v. Wade—a completely separate issue again. It is naive to say that we should try to change our whole system to embrace and address that issue because of what has happened in the United States of America. It would be far better having a much more open and honest debate, rather than one that is based on fear of something that might happen.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about not having misinformation. Would he agree with me that we have to be very careful not to conflate deregulation with decriminalisation? I think that happened in a couple of the earlier contributions. The hon. Gentleman will know from Northern Ireland that although we have introduced decriminalisation, that has not deregulated the controls that are there for abortion. That is a really important point.

[Ian Paisley]

That is an important point that I will come to later when I touch on the matter of decriminalisation.

There were 214,869 abortions in 2021. I looked that up. That is about 40,000 people short of the population of Walthamstow. Just think of the number, if we were to line them up. Do you know what that says to me, Sir Charles? It speaks to the utter, abysmal failure of abortion regulations. Why so many? Why, after so many years—decades and decades of this regulation—is that necessary? There were 214,869 women who felt it was necessary to have an abortion.

[Dr Lewis]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but he is not going to carry the House with an argument that says that the number of abortions is equivalent to the human population of a city when a vast proportion of those abortions will have been at a very early stage—barely fertilised eggs. Although I see Members on the Opposition Benches nodding in agreement with me, I say to them that the demand for an absolute right to abortion similarly but in reverse fails to recognise that a very late-term abortion is killing an embryo that is viable. That is why this is a dialogue of the deaf.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels it is a dialogue of the deaf; I do not think that is the case. It is important that we are, for the first time in a long time, actually having a sensible debate on this matter, because in numerous debates on abortion in the past, people—principally male Members of the House—have been silenced. They have been called out, heckled and told not to speak on an issue that does not concern them. Indeed, we heard the comment earlier in the debate that behind every abortion is a woman—full stop. No, no, no: behind every pregnancy is not only a woman but the life of the unborn and the male who was involved in that pregnancy. Until we have full engagement and an educational process that addresses those issues and gets this nation into a proper debate on this matter—not in a climate of fear and of, “I’d better not speak out because we’re not allowed to say these things any more; they are too difficult to say if you’re a man”—I am afraid this will be a debate of the deaf, but it does not have to be. That is the point.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Men do matter and he is absolutely right to say so. Some 82% of all abortions last year were for women whose marital status was given as single. I commend the men who support their partners and children, and we need more men to do the same. This House is at risk of silencing those men who do stand up and take responsibility for pregnancies.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

In 2022, there were double the number of abortions in Northern Ireland than there were in the previous year. The number doubles each year, and will continue to double, because of the very liberal legislation that is now in place in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) put on the record that one in four of all pregnancies in the United Kingdom end in abortion. In England and Wales, abortions can take place up to the extreme limit of six months, whereas the European median time limit is three months. We need to have a debate about why we have an extreme time limit and why some people wish to drive it even further, to the point of birth, as a right. I just think that is wrong.

We certainly need to have a debate about why there is so much abortion in the United Kingdom. To go back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), why are second and third-time pregnancies leading to abortion? Why are older women having abortions? Those questions need to be asked. It cannot all be ectopic, it cannot all be rape, it cannot all be incest and it cannot all be miscarriage.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

I give way to the hon. Member for Gower.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. He is right to say that no one should be silenced, which is what I wanted to achieve with this debate. Everybody has a choice, but it is ultimately the woman’s body and it is ultimately her choice. We must not conflate that, because it is really important to women and girls everywhere, and not all have the privilege, as we do, to have the comfort of bringing up a child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but of course there are two sets of DNA, two bloodstreams, two lives and two heartbeats. It is more than just the woman’s body. While I accept that women have a very difficult choice to make and are sometimes put in a horrible position by irresponsible and selfish men, women are sometimes talked out of the choice to protect a life. I have seen and heard it, and I want to make sure that there is a choice to allow the life to flourish and to grow, and that there are other opportunities beyond the womb. That is something that we should of course be dwelling on.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this issue in many different ways, and I know he does not mean to sound like he is suggesting that it is okay if a man tells a woman that she has to have the baby but not okay if he supports her choice to have an abortion. That would be the corollary of what he is saying.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to legalisation in Northern Ireland, we did not just have decriminalisation and we did not just take away the Offences Against the Person Act 1861? We also brought in laws to regulate how a woman can access an abortion. There is no late-term abortion or sex selection in Northern Ireland. The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 cover precisely those issues, so it is not that enshrining a human rights perspective leads to no regulation; it removes the criminal element of our old regulation and allows us to have these debates.

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, the issue is that the hon. Member cannot say that there is no late termination, because she does not know; she cannot say that there is no sex selection, because she cannot know. The law now masks that and does not allow us to know that, because it is a right to have it as of a right, not because there is a reason. That is the issue. Indeed, I know it is an issue that the hon. Member would like to have here—I know she would like to have termination right up to the point of birth, for whatever reason. It is an issue—

[Stella Creasy]

That is a misrepresentation.

[Ian Paisley]

Maybe the hon. Member does not want it right up to the point of birth, but she certainly wants the most liberal interpretation of the law that is possible. We will disagree on that, but the attempt to silence people from having the conversation on this matter is of course morally wrong. I hope we never get to that position.

I said that I wanted to touch on the issue of decriminalisation, because that has been an important point in this debate and there are difficult cases. Of course, we are talking about such a small number, which was touched on earlier: 17 cases in seven or eight years, I think, in the United Kingdom. Yes, it was difficult for the 17 people who have been questioned on this matter, and more difficult for the two people who have been charged.

Let us deal with one of the cases in which a charge was brought: that of Sarah Catt in 2010. The examples of women who were prosecuted following late-term abortions include Sarah Catt in 2010, who took abortion pills at a 38 or 39-week gestation and then buried the body of the child. The judge in the case said that

“all right-thinking people would consider this more serious than involuntary manslaughter or indeed any offence save murder.”

The judge also said that no remorse was detected. How would that case be dealt with under a new dispensation where there is no criminalisation? Would we create a gap in the law that would allow for people to, quite frankly, get away with murder? That is the unfortunate circumstance.

We also have circumstances in which men wrongly try to enforce or encourage an abortion on a partner who is pregnant by hiding tablets, by putting tablets into a drink to spike it, or by trying to encourage them to have a miscarriage and forcing that. With decriminalisation, how would a clever lawyer get those people off that particular charge? It would happen.

We could enter into this new dispensation of a rights base—putting this into the Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom—that would be abhorrent in terms of the law, because there are people who, unfortunately, do commit criminal offences and do commit them around pregnant women, and there are women who are pregnant and commit such offences, and the law should try to deal with it. Yes, the law should deal with it sensitively, but it should deal with it proportionately. I think 17 cases in seven years is proportionate, given that we have about 900,000 pregnancies in the United Kingdom annually.

Assisted Dying

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Each of us has personal experiences of our closest, our nearest and dearest, dying—if we do not, we one day will. I watched my father die, I watched my father-in-law die and I watched my brother-in-law die. One was in a hospice, one was at our family home and one was in a hospital, and the experience is shocking. That is life: in the midst of life, we are in death. Here we have no continuing. This is not our final resting place.

As a nation, we need a national conversation about death. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned that briefly, but we need to focus on it. It was said during the last debate that that should happen, but no one bothered their backsides doing it; no one took it forward. This House really should have a proper conversation about death, and let us put into that conversation real palliative care.

My dear friend, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who I oppose, said that our hospice care in this country is superb. Indeed, there is an element of it trying to be superb, but let us be clear: our palliative care and hospice care system in the United Kingdom is struggling. It does not have the resources it requires. Hence, people say, “Let’s give hope to someone in a different way. Let’s try to find a way of ending pain.”

When we were faced with the coronavirus, did our Government give up hope, or did they put massive resources into funding a way to find a vaccine? That vaccine gave hope. When our country was struggling with the AIDS epidemic, did we give up hope? Did we say, “That’s a life sentence. Tough luck”? No, we put money and resources into medication and medicines that now ensure that it is not a life sentence.

What more can we do if the Government, with our help, put resources into cancer care and cancer research, incurable diseases and care, and palliative care? If we do that, we will achieve so much more, and as a Parliament we will give hope to people. Today, I am afraid we are giving hopelessness to some and saying, “This is the only way out. We can’t do anything more.” We can do more if we find the courage to do so. I appeal to the Minister: if there is a national debate—a national conversation about death and dying—will he make sure it is also a conversation about palliative care, faith, spiritualism and all the things we need a conversation about? If we have that conversation, we will find that we can give people hope.

[Mr Mitchell]

I hope I can just nail this point about palliative care. Both sides of this debate are strongly in favour of increasing palliative care. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the jurisdictions that have gone down the route that I and many of my colleagues have proposed have also prioritised palliative care and increased spending on it?

[Ian Paisley]

I am not for one moment saying, and I do not think that I can be accused of saying, that those who look at assisted dying do not care about palliative care. I do not think anyone is—are we really that heartless?—but I think we have to give hope to people. We need to turn this debate around into a debate about palliative care and helping people when they are at their lowest.

It is a fact that our health service is struggling; it is a fact that our cancer waiting lists are the worst in western Europe; and it is a fact that we need to do much more when it comes to giving care and carrying out research into rare and unique diseases, so that people can find a way out.

It is also very important that the statistics are not with this blasé view that says, “This is where Britain stands. They want to see a law change.” First of all, in the Republic of Ireland the assisted dying law was rejected overwhelmingly by Dáil Éireann, because it did not believe that it was a way that could bring satisfaction.

The threat to the disabled and the vulnerable has been raised by Disability Rights UK, Scope and the United Kingdom’s Disabled People’s Council, all of which say that this debate on assisted dying causes them great concerns. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians do not support moves towards assisted dying.

I think there has been some—

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

No, I do not have injury time.

The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) touched upon the issue of Oregon. It is not a debate that is widely discussed and we should say that within 10 years we could see times fifteen—I repeat: times fifteen—the number of people wanting to explore and use assisted suicide. There is something seriously wrong when that is where this debate takes people.

We need to focus on things that will give people hope and the opportunity to find a better way. When we walked into this Chamber today, we walked under a portrait of Moses. That portrait carried with it a biblical and, indeed, faith inspiration that we can make good laws. We can make the best laws. Changing the law on this would be the wrong choice, and if it ever comes to a debate on the Floor of the House, I will vote against it.

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson]

And if that was your dog?

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kit Malthouse]

During the debate, a series of claims have been made about dogs being bled or force-fed, and I would be more than happy to correspond with Members on the scientific basis for those activities. While I understand that this is a very emotive and difficult issue—these are not pleasant practices that anybody would necessarily enjoy—there are sound, scientific reasons for their being employed. I would be more than happy to correspond with Members to explain how and why.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

Unfortunately, that is also true. I think most of us will have seen that in our surgeries.

It is also worth saying that the pilot information meetings held under the Family Law Act 1996, which was passed but never brought into force, indicated very strongly that, by this stage, very often people have made a decision and want to move on. In reality, there may be another family, or a new relationship has started. People should not be forced to point a finger of blame. A law that requires that is doing no social or ethical good.

Amendment 3, in effect, restates and retains the fault- based approach. That is opposed by Resolution—an admirable body—and not supported by the Marriage Foundation either. I simply do not think that professionals believe that anything is gained by this approach.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has reiterated that certain professionals will not gain out of this, but is not the unfortunate fact that some professionals in the legal field will set themselves up as the expert in finding the loophole, the expert in the quickie divorce, the person who can get people over the hurdles even faster? As we have seen in other fields, there will be some unscrupulous individuals who market themselves on that basis. That is a problem that the Bill introduces.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I do not think the Bill adds to that problem at all. If it exists, it can exist in any profession and can be dealt with by proper regulation. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that the current situation makes that problem worse, because people have to go through what is rightly described by the research from the University of Exeter as a legal farce—a legal ritual of saying, “What is the minimum form of words that your client will accept that will meet the legal test to enable us to get divorced?” That is the sort of thing that can be taken advantage of and it is where the unscrupulous will come in. Removing fault removes the ability for the unscrupulous person to play upon fault, be they a purported adviser or a party to the divorce. Maintaining that approach and resisting these amendments, however well intended, is important and I urge the Government to do so.

It is important to look at the international comparisons. In England, a disproportionate amount of reliance is placed upon fault as the grounds for divorce. There are other grounds for divorce, but because it is complicated at the moment some 60% of divorces in England are based upon allegations of adultery. By that stage, people have split up and are often living apart. There is the business of having to point the finger about who did what. My old pupil master, whom I believe I mentioned on Second Reading, was around when we still had to go through the charade of getting an affidavit from a chambermaid or the receptionist in a hotel to prove divorce. It was a demeaning business and thank God we got rid of that. Maintaining a fault system, which, as I say, entrenches conflict, does us no credit as far as that is concerned.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

If it is six months in 2020, is the hon. Gentleman concerned that in 2025 or 2030 it could be a handful of months?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Indeed, there is already provision in the Bill to reduce the six months in exceptional circumstances, and we know where that could tend in future.

The reliance on objective facts is now being abolished in favour of a subjective declaration that one party wants out of the marriage, and that effectively means that the vows made at the beginning have no legal force and no moral value. That is why the Bill is about more than divorce.

Much has been made of the hypocrisy that fault-based divorce involves, with people claiming all sorts of things to prove the breakdown, but in trying to remove hypocrisy at the end of the marriage, we are introducing hypocrisy at the start. In the attempt to improve the integrity of the law, the Government are undermining the integrity of marriage.

I fear that this Bill is a great surrender. There were other ways to achieve the ends that the Government seek, namely to let people move on with their lives sooner than two years. We could have judicial separation after six months, so that people can settle their affairs before a divorce, including moving out of the family home. We could have the Scottish system, which is the same as ours, but with shorter periods—one-year separation for no-fault divorce by consent, two years for unilateral divorce. If we really want to reduce the conflict at the end of marriages, we should reform the law around financial provisions, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, and improve child custody arrangements. These are really the sources of conflict, not the terms of the divorce.

All that said, I accept that this Bill is going to pass, although I hope the Government will consider some changes. They include extending the notification period from six months to 12 months; only starting that period once both parties are aware of it; making the declaration of irretrievable breakdown come at the end, not the beginning of the notification period, so that it is a meaningful period in which people can change their mind and reconciliation can be effected; and, to that end, agreeing proper funding of family hubs and couple counselling, which hon. Members have raised, including once an application has been made, because, contrary to myth, counselling can be effective, even at this late stage. I appreciate that the Bill reflects changing attitudes to marriage. I regret those changing attitudes, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend regrets them. Indeed, I think everybody does. In this place we need to lead the culture, not to follow. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the cultural effect of the Bill and think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

One of the greatest assets of becoming a Member of Parliament is that you can speak on matters that you have experienced first-hand and matters that have affected you deeply. For those who have actually experienced a long, protracted and acrimonious divorce, it leaves an indelible mark on them and, in many cases, on their families and children forever.

I want to speak today on this Bill because it resonates with me personally. I have wrestled, as many Members have, with the potentially difficult connotations that this law has specifically around the devaluing of marriage, which I absolutely do not want to see happen at all. However, as the Lord Chancellor set out, the Government have brought the Bill before us with a specific aim: to ease the unnecessary conflict for couples and children.

Growing up, I experienced my family going through divorce not once but twice: once when I was a toddler and again in my final years of school. This is not the arena to open up those experiences, but this is none the less a policy area in which I am passionate to see the law improve. I am able to speak on behalf of so many people who are affected by the current system, and for the children and families affected by the deep and lasting trauma that a difficult divorce leaves, and I am fully supportive of the ability to change the law and make it better.

I am 100% committed to the values of marriage. Perhaps witnessing that painful divorce was the driving force behind my wanting to have such a happy and fulfilling marriage with my wife and my children. That is one of my proudest achievements and even my wife, who disagrees with me many times, would probably say that it is one of my better achievements. It has been going for 10 and a half years—I know I do not look old enough to have a 10-and-a-half-year marriage. For so many people, that is not the case. To continue to bind people together for years in an irretrievable situation just exacerbates the pain for the parties.

It is a good decision to deal with the consequences. Any ability to remove some of the outdated requirements to allege fault or show evidence of separation will promote a less antagonistic process. However, as some people have said, although removing the ability to lay blame may expediate the process when one party will not accept that there is a problem, we have to balance that carefully with the values of marriage.

As many Members have said, all marriages are worth fighting for. We must not make them overridingly easy to exit, so I am pleased with the measure that ensures that there will be a minimum of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings before someone can give confirmation to the court that the conditional order may be made. Together with the existing six-week period, that will mean that the legal process for obtaining a divorce under the new process will take a minimum of six months. That comforts some of the concerns that I had.

In the breakdown of a marriage, the accompanying ancillary relief procedures are often the bitter and acrimonious parts of the divorce. Like many Members, I would welcome some kind of compulsory marriage guidance within the six-month window to act as a brake—to provide reflection and, indeed, evidence that a marriage has irreversibly broken down.

[Ian Paisley]

Given that the Government carried out a consultation and more than 70% of respondents indicated a concern about where Government policy was going, is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that when it comes to practice the reassurances being given by the Government will be cast aside as casually as the consultation process was?

[Duncan Baker]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s concerns into consideration but, as has been set out, the overriding ambition in all this is not to quicken up the divorce process but to take away some of the exacerbating issues that cause pain and suffering in the breakdown of a marriage. That is the essence of the legislation that the Lord Chancellor has brought to us.

At the very core of the legislation is the goal of minimising conflict and promoting a more amicable resolution. I do not believe that, given the consideration necessary to get married, the measures before us will end up culminating in a speedier divorce process. I think of the absolute difficulty of going through that pain to end up in such a position. It will do more good to help to alleviate the deep conflict that can arise. Above all, if implementing the Bill can do anything to significantly lessen the damage to children’s life chances, I will wholeheartedly support the Government.

Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on getting today’s debate on the agenda. I agree wholeheartedly that we should be helping people, not penalising them, and that there is certainly a need for regulatory change on the British mainland.

May I cite the example of Northern Ireland? Bailiffs do not operate in Northern Ireland; we have a very different system, which I recommend that the Minister should examine when she considers how to take action on the points raised today. Indeed, the attitude of, “If you have it and you haven’t paid, we will seize it”, I see on popular television programmes, which is alien to many people in Northern Ireland who face debt issues.

Enforcement officers in Northern Ireland can go out only if they have a court order and are accompanied by a police officer. Enforcement is strictly and specifically done via court order, and the individual in question knows that it is happening and, ultimately, when it will happen. This is therefore not a common practice, as it is on the British mainland. Even in the Republic of Ireland, where bailiffs do operate, the court order has to contain the name of the bailiff who will go to the person’s home. It is an open and transparent system, which can be challenged.

Why is that the case? Northern Ireland’s troubled past is very clear. Having gangs or groups of people who are allowed to “enforce” in Northern Ireland without police supervision could be very dangerous, given our paramilitary past and the issues that pertain there. Indeed, there are some very detailed cases that show why that should be avoided. Most recently, for example, in Roscommon in the Republic of Ireland, a Northern Ireland enforcement team was employed by a bank to seize a property that a mortgage had not been paid on for 16 years. The enforcement order in the Republic of Ireland contained the name of the bailiffs who would attend the property and remove the people who had not paid for it. Unfortunately, it spiralled into a very serious crime situation.

The bailiffs, or the enforcement officers from Northern Ireland who were employed, many of them ex-soldiers and some of them ex-police officers, were charged upon by about 40 people in a gang. A chainsaw was taken to the door, the door was removed, and the bailiffs were dragged out of the property, tied up and beaten. One of them received a fractured skull, another a broken arm. The dog that they had with them to do security work and to look after the property that evening was killed. One of the bailiffs was forced with a gun pointed to his head to eat the faeces that the dog had left. So we had a very serious situation.

Thankfully, the Guards in the Republic of Ireland have arrested four people and hopefully charges will pertain in that case. However, it shows the difficulties in a situation that has grown up with crime, and I see crime developing here on the British mainland in many of our cities, where there is anger and instant “law of the jungle” retribution. We saw that here in this city last night, with people stabbing a boy who had driven into their car. Allowing that sort of attitude to develop in a country will lead to a law of the jungle mentality. The culture change that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East argued for is therefore absolutely essential.

We do not need gangs of people to be asked to do this work; rather, we need a managed response to debt. Debt has to be addressed and ultimately, of course, paid, and the person has to take responsibility for paying off their debts. But when enforcement officers humiliate people, and when they feel vulnerable in their own properties and do not know their rights, as Members have described, that needs to addressed through proper regulation. I therefore support the motion moved by the hon. Lady and hope that the Government will look at the example of Northern Ireland and ask, “How have they been able to get away from creating a situation that would have deteriorated into a downward spiral of the law of the jungle?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is right to say that in putting together this scheme discussions went on for two years with members of the Bar and the MOJ. They were calling for us to implement this scheme, so that is the scheme we have implemented. We are always willing to talk to members of the CBA and the Bar Council. Since I have been appointed, in the past three months, I have met the chairman of the Bar Council twice and the chair of the CBA twice.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has just undergone the longest rape trial in its history, resulting in the acquittal of four men. The Department is carrying out a major review of that trial because of subsequent problems flowing from it. Will the Government—the Department—make a submission to that review, particularly looking at whether the accused should not be named until after a verdict is published?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This is a long-standing and very sensitive issue, one my predecessors have looked at closely. We continue to look at it; there are arguments on both sides, and we need to examine the cases carefully before we rush to any judgment on this.

Legal Aid: Birmingham Pub Bombings

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. The early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley—I am pleased to welcome her to the debate—is getting wide support across the House, irrespective of party. This is not a party matter; it is a matter of justice and parity. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) said, the fact that the coroner supports public funding being made available for the families of the pub bombing victims underlines that he understands that this is a question of justice. We are asking for Ministers to have that same level of understanding.

The Legal Aid Agency is insisting that existing regulations prevent it from providing assistance, even though the families were eventually granted legal aid for the inquest. One reason the LAA put forward is that the families should instruct lawyers on a no-win, no-fee basis. That argument is undermined by the fact that a protective costs order was already accepted by the High Court and would quite possibly be accepted by the Court of Appeal. The avenue of getting representation on a no-win, no-fee basis is simply unlikely to be available to the families.

However, it seems that the Legal Aid Agency’s main reason for refusing legal aid this time is because the collective capital of the families provides

“potential source of funding from which it would be reasonable to fund the case”.

Indeed, in a letter to one of the law firms representing the families, the Legal Aid Agency went so far as to suggest that the possibility of further crowdfunding appeal could suggest that the families do not need legal aid to present their case. I find that suggestion astonishing. It is in the public interest for this case to be heard; it should not be dependent on how successful the families are in passing the hat around. The bottom line, however, is that in a letter to me and other Birmingham Members, the Legal Aid Agency insists that it has no discretion to come to any decision other than to refuse legal aid.

From my reading of the rules governing legal aid, I do not know whether the Legal Aid Agency has no discretion here. It is not clear how the refusal of legal aid for the Court of Appeal hearing logically squares with the fact that families finally won legal aid for their representation at the inquest. As inconsistent as it may appear, if for whatever reason there is no discretion by which the families can be granted legal aid, my request to the Minister is for the Government to step up to the plate for justice by directly authorising that public funding be made available outside the regular legal aid framework.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the debate. He is right that this is a cross-party, cross-nation issue. One of the premises of British law is that justice must be seen to be done. Is he as perplexed as I am by what has happened in this case? The British public are aghast, wondering why other groups and individuals appear to find it so easy to get legal aid, while a group of victims who have gone through the wringer for many decades cannot access justice, and are therefore having justice denied them.

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Gentleman is right that people in Birmingham, and people throughout the west midlands and beyond, are looking at this situation and saying: “If it is the public interest for the case to be tested at the Court of Appeal, how can it be that only one side is being funded to do so?” I am not sure that I agree with him that it is easy for a lot of other people to get legal aid. In fact, the changes to the legal aid system have been a concern for a wide range of people seeking public support in their quests for justice. Certainly in this case, however, it is astonishing that legal aid has been denied.

Ministers know that public funding has sometimes been made available outside the legal aid system. It was rightly made available for the Hillsborough inquests, when legal aid was not available. I therefore ask the Minister: does she agree with the Legal Aid Agency’s contention that it has no discretion at all to grant legal aid for the appeal court hearing? If she does not agree, will she put the Legal Aid Agency right? If she agrees with the Legal Aid Agency, does she also agree with my contention that it is in the public interest for both the coroner and the families to have equal resources to test their cases at the Court of Appeal, and that the Government should therefore make available the public resources to achieve that objective outside the regular legal aid framework?

Beyond the specifics of this case, I refer the Minister to what the then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), said in response to the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley in 2016. He said that

“families in very difficult circumstances with complicated cases have gone unrepresented while public bodies and individuals are represented at a cost to the public. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are rightly working collaboratively to consider that issue”

and

“are looking at the best way forward.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 400-402.]

Furthermore, in October last year the Lord Chancellor issued a written ministerial statement confirming that a post-legislative review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, better known as LASPO, was commencing. Will the Minister please update the House on the progress of that post-legislative review, particularly given that a number of bodies, not least the Law Society, have called for the criteria for providing public funding to be simplified, and for the guidance to the Legal Aid Agency to be amended to widen the scope for funding for representation, particularly of bereaved families?

Irrespective of what progress is or is not being made in those inter-departmental discussions and in the post-legislative review, the issue of how these families’ cases will be funded at the Court of Appeal will not wait. If the system has failed them, and if legal aid has failed them, it is time for the Government to step up to the plate directly and make public funds available some other way. It is simply about fairness and parity. Justice demands no less.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I am loth to stray into Northern Ireland politics for extremely clear reasons.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I would avoid it.

[Hywel Williams]

I take that advice. I say only that it has been suggested that some in Northern Ireland would surely see the Government’s taking this decision with no Assembly in place as being the diktat of a governor general, or at the very least unwise as a basis on which to proceed.

As I said, the elephant in the room is the question of who speaks for England. This is the last constitutional conundrum—the constitutional exceptionalism that successive Governments have failed to address in this place. Who speaks for England? Clearly on this matter, it appears that this Conservative Government do so. Are the Labour Opposition sanguine about that? I hope to press this amendment to a vote. I do not know how Labour will vote on it, but I remind them that their Labour colleagues in Cardiff are certainly not sanguine.

The Minister may point to the resurrected Joint Ministerial Committee as a cover for—