Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman mentions treaties, but I did not; I mentioned a legal obligation, under which the House of Commons has placed us through section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. As he will know, as a result of an urgent question last week, we debated at some length the fact that we were bringing this forward, and I provided answers as to why we were doing so, rather than—as some in his party suggested—repealing section 9. I think this is a perfectly rational approach to delivering on the commitments that the House has placed on us under the 2019 Act.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has behaved with genuine courtesy throughout the whole of this process. Would he comment on whether, in the write-round that precedes these things, our Attorney General expressed any concerns in respect of the legal and constitutional implications of these regulations? I appreciate that the Minister cannot detail any concerns—that would be inappropriate—but were concerns expressed by the Attorney General about the legal and constitutional implications?

[Mr Walker]

As my right hon. Friend knows very well, the Government never comment on legal advice. However, he is quite right to refer to the fact that there has been a write-round process, and the Attorney General of the United Kingdom has supported that process to allow these regulations to move forward.

This statutory instrument, the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, came into force on 14 May and revoked the earlier regulations. These regulations have been made in accordance with the statutory duty that Parliament imposed on the Government last summer through section 9 of the 2019 Act. That duty was to make regulations to provide for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland in a way that implemented the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under article 8 of the optional protocol of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The CEDAW recommendations mandate access to abortion services at least in the cases of

“(i) Threat to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health without conditionality of ‘long-term or permanent’ effects;

(ii) Rape and incest; and

(iii) Severe foetal impairment, including FFA, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities and ensuring appropriate and ongoing support, social and financial, for women who decide to carry such pregnancies to term.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I respect the hon. Lady and the position from which she is arguing, but the Northern Ireland Assembly has had many opportunities to take forward these issues and provide a framework that would address the requirements of CEDAW, and it has not taken them. As she refers to the debate, I reiterate what I said in response to the urgent question last week: the Northern Ireland Assembly chose to vote on one aspect of these regulations and said that it did not like it. It did not debate the full details of the regulations themselves, and it did not provide a way forward that is compliant with CEDAW. I am very happy for it to debate these issues and take them forward, but it must do so in a way that is CEDAW compliant. It has every right to do that and reform these regulations, should it choose to do so in a way that is CEDAW compliant.

I appreciate that this is an issue on which views are deeply held, and I respect the fact that people coming at it from either side of the argument are doing so with the best interests of others in mind. I have no doubt that the arguments that we will hear today, across the whole spectrum of opinion on the subject, come from the heart and will be well informed. The starting point for the framework was that, as a result of the repeal of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, from 22 October 2019 carrying out an abortion is no longer a criminal offence, except for late-term abortion, to which the offence of destroying a child capable of being born alive would still apply.

In relation to complying with the statutory duty on the Government, our overarching policy aims were to ensure that the framework protects and promotes the health and safety of women and girls, provides clarity and certainty for the medical profession, and is responsive and sensitive to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly being restored from January, where our legal obligation remained to act on this issue.

Towards the end of last year, we publicly consulted on the proposals for the new legislative framework. The consultation gave people and organisations in Northern Ireland an opportunity to provide input and views on how we could best deliver an abortion framework consistent with our statutory duty. We were clear in that consultation that this is not about whether the Government should deliver on our statutory duty, but rather about how we can most effectively deliver a framework as required.

The Government have engaged with a range of stakeholders in Northern Ireland during this process and in recent months, including political parties, medical professionals, women’s groups, abortion service providers, trade unions, civil society organisations, individuals with lived experience and church groups. We listened to feedback expressed in the consultation process and through various engagements, and we have responded accordingly. We have sought to balance the range of views against our statutory duty, and to take pragmatic decisions informed by evidence.

Many stakeholders have welcomed the regulations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is our firm view that the regulations provide a new legislative framework that is operationally sound, works best for Northern Ireland and delivers on the Government’s statutory duty.

[Sir John Hayes]

On the issue of the legality of these regulations, I understand the Minister’s reticence about discussing the legal advice from our Attorney General, but he will know that Northern Ireland’s Attorney General has also commented, and made those comments publicly available. That gentlemen has argued that regulations 7 and 12 are ultra vires and that, in respect of regulation 13, the Secretary of State may have been guilty of misdirection. Those are very serious remarks from a Law Officer. Would that advice not make it almost impossible to receive these regulations in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend refers to the Attorney General’s comments to the Executive, which, as he says, he has made public.

I am, for my part, very confident that we have the vires under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 to carry forward the legislation. I have to say to my right hon. Friend, whom I greatly respect, that this issue has been a matter of contention over a long period. He, like me, would much rather that Northern Ireland politicians had been able to address the issue together and take it forward, but that has not proven to be the case. It was in recognition of that that this House told the Government to take action on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman refers to statistics, and numbers of people. These are contested matters; we hear of different polls giving different results on these issues. What is very clear is that this Parliament mandated the Government to deliver on this issue. We have the vires to do so, and we have sought to do.

[Sir John Hayes]

The last Parliament.

[Mr Walker]

It was the last Parliament, as my right hon. Friend points out. I believe that the majority by which that Parliament, on a free vote, mandated the Government to do this was around two thirds. I think it is very clear that this is the right thing to do, partly because of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Down.

I know that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford when he just spoke, have expressed that this has resulted in what they view as a more liberal regime than in Great Britain. I do not believe that that is the case, and we have sought to ensure proper and appropriate implementation of the CEDAW recommendations, in a way that means that the outcomes delivered will be equivalent to those in the rest of the UK, to ensure that women and girls have the same access to services in similar circumstances.

Therefore, many of the provisions in the regulations mirror provisions under the Abortion Act 1967 on such issues as conscientious objection to ensure consistency in the provision of services across the UK. The Government’s response to the consultation, published on gov.uk, sets out further detail on how the Government made their decision on each element of the framework, and the reasons behind each decision.

I will briefly turn to an overview of the key elements of the regulations. They provide for access to abortions without conditionality up to 12 weeks’ gestation. We judge that that provision is proportionate and appropriate in order to implement the CEDAW recommendation of ensuring access in cases of sexual crime, while avoiding building a system that could lead to further trauma for victims of rape or incest, or act as a barrier to access for those victims. A barrier to access would, in the Government’s view, be a breach of the CEDAW requirements.

Without a period of access without conditionality, the duty to report a crime that applies to everyone in Northern Ireland, including medical professionals, could create a perceived barrier to access for victims of sexual crime and lead to women or girls seeking alternative, unsafe options outside the health system, which we want to avoid now that there is lawful access. We know that that was an issue in preventing access to even the very limited scope of abortions that were legally available prior to October 2019.

The regulations also set out three further circumstances in which an abortion is legal: first, up to 24 weeks’ gestation, in cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or girl greater than the risk of terminating the pregnancy; and, secondly, in cases of severe foetal impairment and fatal foetal abnormalities with no gestational time limit. That is where there is a substantial risk that the condition of the foetus is such that the death of the foetus is likely before, during or shortly after birth; or, if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental impairment as to be seriously disabled. The third set of circumstances are cases where there is a risk to the life of the woman or girl greater than if the pregnancy were terminated or, where necessary, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or girl, including in cases of immediate necessity—with no gestational time limit.

In such cases, the regulations require that two medical professionals, as defined in the regulations, certify in good faith that the ground has been met. Abortions are also allowed where it is immediately necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman. The CEDAW report is silent on the question of gestational limit in such circumstances. We consider that the above grounds are an appropriate way of delivering on our statutory duty and implementing the recommendations of the report in a way that will work effectively in practice. An intentional contravention of the requirements to certify that an opinion has been reached in good faith that one of the grounds under the regulations has been met to allow the abortion is punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.

The regulations allow for abortions to be provided by a doctor, nurse or midwife. They may be carried out in general practitioners’ premises, clinics provided by a health and social care trust, and health and social care trust hospitals, operating under the overall Northern Ireland health and social care framework. Early medical abortions are carried out by taking two pills. The regulations allow the second pill to be taken at a woman’s home, following the first pill being taken at an approved location. That mirrors the approach used in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The regulations allow the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to approve other places where abortions may take place—a power that mirrors the power for the Secretary of State under the Abortion Act. That could be used, for example, to approve third or private sector provision, or to enable greater use of telemedicine.

The regulations require the medical professional to notify the chief medical officer of the Northern Ireland Department of Health of the abortion, alongside other relevant data specified in the regulations. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland will then be responsible for annual publication of relevant data. To ensure confidentiality and the protection of personal data, the regulations impose restrictions on how the data can be used. Disclosure of information notified to the chief medical officer, other than in accordance with the regulations, is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.

We recognise the strongly held beliefs about abortion. That is why the regulations make it clear that no one will be required to take part in treatment for abortion to which they have a conscientious objection. The only exception is where that treatment is necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman.

That protection mirrors precisely the conscientious objection provision in the Abortion Act, is consistent with the interpretation of that provision by the Supreme Court, and does not extend to the ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with that treatment. The Government are satisfied that the current scope of the conscientious objection provision works satisfactorily in the rest of the UK, is human rights compliant, and is therefore appropriate to apply in Northern Ireland to the provision of abortion services under the regulations.

Finally, the regulations impose a criminal sanction on anyone who intentionally terminates or procures the termination of the pregnancy of a woman otherwise than in accordance with the regulations. That is about where someone is acting dishonestly or negligently, and it will not apply where a termination was done in good faith for the purpose only of saving the woman’s life or preventing grave permanent injury to the woman’s physical or mental health. It is not intended that a medical professional should be prosecuted where they form an honest opinion in good faith as to risk, but makes a factual error.

As an additional protection for medical professionals, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before proceedings can be brought under the regulations. Other criminal laws will continue to apply, including section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which prohibits the destruction of a child otherwise capable of being born alive. However, the regulations make relevant amendments necessary to ensure that abortions carried out in accordance with the regulations by the relevant medical professionals are not contrary to section 25 of the 1945 Act, and no woman or girl can be prosecuted with respect to ending her own pregnancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

In her advocacy of clarity and certainty, perhaps we can be clear and certain about those who were just named in the intervention by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Can I ask a straightforward question? Will she back the Bill that will be presented to the House to prohibit the abortion of people with cleft lips and palates or clubbed feet, who are currently under the law in this country, let alone in Northern Ireland, being aborted, but could live and be successfully treated?

[Mrs Miller]

I will look carefully at the measure that my right hon. Friend is talking about because although this is a live debate, it should not fog what is a wrong and inappropriate system in Northern Ireland where women in very difficult situations have not been able to access a service which I am afraid his and my constituents would take for granted. That is not right.

Sir David, I will make progress and I am sorry to colleagues who would like to intervene—maybe I should speak a little more before accepting any further interventions. The simple truth that we found when we spoke to people on the ground in Northern Ireland of all views—it is our obligation as a Select Committee to have done that—was that there were some doctors who believed that referring women for an abortion in England was unlawful—fact; and that women were being forced to bring back the remains of their foetuses in their hand luggage because they were not able to be treated more formally for fear of being reported to the police. These are the sorts of things that we found in the Select Committee inquiry—practices that we would not accept in any other part of the United Kingdom. I gently ask DUP Members who are unhappy about this coming into play to look at the detail of those inquiry submissions to understand the reality of what was happening on the ground for too many women.

In the absence of an independent regulator of health in Northern Ireland, can the Minister confirm again—I asked him this question on the Floor of the House—who will monitor the implementation of these new regulations which have to include the expansion of training and medical facilities, because there is no independent regulator to do that? What obligations are there on the Northern Ireland Government to ensure that any future re-evaluation of this policy has to be human rights compliant and has to be compliant with the international obligations of the United Kingdom of which they are part?

The Select Committee recommendations included the very useful recommendation that the General Medical Council should run a campaign to raise awareness about how to complain about a doctor if they fall short on standards expected under the law, particularly with regard to abortion. That would help to increase public confidence and, perhaps, confidence among doctors about what is lawful and what is not lawful, because in our conversations with doctors only a year ago, it was clear there was a huge amount of confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

This is a contentious issue. Abortion debates always arouse, stimulate, catalyse strong opinions. But this, in essence, is not about abortion. These regulations and this debate are about devolution. They are about the willingness of this House to respect the settlement that it made with the people of Northern Ireland. It is my contention that these regulations—these proposals—are unconstitutional, unwanted and unwise. The risk that we run by voting for them is of opening a Pandora’s box in respect of our constitutional settlement with Ulster. If we take this out of the box, why not something else? What is to be next? All at a time when that settlement is fragile, this tests it to a point where I would not be sure that it will not break.

As a Unionist, I have protecting the strength of the United Kingdom at the heart of my political credo, and I know the same is true for colleagues across this Committee and, indeed, the whole House. With that in mind, I urge members of the Committee and the House to reflect on the importance of devolution in the context of Northern Ireland. The UK Government have an ethical duty to honour their promise to the people of Ulster, as well as a constitutional duty to preserve our Union.

It was that sentiment that I imagine the hon. Member for Walthamstow had in mind when she initiated the measures to which these regulations give flight. She said:

“I understand that, if it was not for the fact that we do not have an Assembly, this would absolutely not be the right way forward, but we do not have an Assembly and we will not have one any time soon.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 183.]

Of course, the truth is that we do now have an Assembly, and that Assembly has the understandable expectation that it should decide on matters on which we ask it to do so. The extraordinary behaviour of the Government—I say that with all respect to the Minister, who, as I said at the outset, has behaved with great courtesy and decency in the discussions that we have had with them on this subject—given that there has been an election since the original decision was taken to impose their views and these regulations on Northern Ireland, flies in the face of the devolution settlement.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend consider the right that I have to effect legislation as an hon. Member? I did so last year, and I expect that legislation to come into force. Will he also consider the point that treaty obligations are a requirement for this institution to take into account and not for the Assembly in Northern Ireland?

[Sir John Hayes]

To be clear, when that decision was taken, Stormont was not sitting and there was no prospect of its doing so. We were not to know then—I am sure that my hon. Friend voted in good faith—that Stormont would reassemble and thereby be able to come to a view about these matters. This is a devolved matter, after all. Were this a matter that would normally be decided by this Parliament, I would not be able to make the point that we are imposing our view in an area of policy that we chose to devolve to the Assembly.

It would be no different if we were doing this in Scotland or Wales. It not only risks the settlement in Northern Ireland, but undermines the very principle of devolution. I was here when we first debated that, and I think I voted against it when the Labour Government introduced it, as most of my party did. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would have done so too, had he been here. However, the settlement that we came to went through, and that is where we are.

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. The point that I would make, though, is that treaty obligations, which are what the Supreme Court said Parliament was out of step with, are a duty and requirement of this place, and not a devolved matter.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am not sure that that is the view that the Northern Ireland Attorney General took. I refer my hon. Friend to his advice, of which I have a copy if he wants to read it in detail; I cited it earlier. I am also not sure, although he would have to ask this question of course, that it would necessarily be the view that our Attorney General would take. However, that is not for me to judge or gauge, and since I could not encourage the Minister to give any greater clarity about the Attorney General’s advice, perhaps I will leave it there.

[Stephen Farry]

rose—

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I wish to make some progress, and then I will happily give way again. The key thing is that the will of the people of Northern Ireland is clearly quite different from the view of the last Parliament, when the essence of the changes that the regulations make legal was considered. For any Parliament to fly in the face of the will of the people is, as I have described it, not only unconstitutional but unwise.

It is quite clear that the regulations are unwanted in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the consultation, to which 79% of respondents stated their opposition to the furthering of abortion provision in Northern Ireland.

[Richard Graham]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not want to give way too often, because I know that others want to contribute, but I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Richard Graham]

On that specific point, what percentage of the population responded to the consultation?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a question for the Minister, not me, because he will have those figures to hand, but he was the one who made great play of the consultation, not I. He cited the consultation in his opening remarks. Indeed, he celebrated the fact that the Government had consulted widely. I was simply clarifying that in that wide consultation the overwhelming majority of people who responded were not in favour of what we are being asked to support today.

There have been other tests of opinion and other polls. The University of Liverpool released a poll showing that only 5% of Northern Irish voters wanted abortion to be provided up to 24 weeks, which is what the regulations do. The strength of feeling on the issue transcends the usual divides in Northern Ireland. According to polling, 58% of Sinn Féin voters and 54% of Democratic Unionist party voters believe that abortion should be allowed only if the mother’s life is at risk.

I could go on about polling, but I will simply make this point: it would be easy to assume that women took a different view from men, or that the young took a different view from those who have lived longer. In truth, women are less supportive of the regulations than men, and the young are less supportive than their parents and grandparents. In Northern Ireland, the regulations are certainly unwanted. That was illustrated last week, as has been said, when the Northern Ireland Assembly voted to oppose the regulations, passing a motion that states:

“That this Assembly welcomes the important intervention of disability campaigner Heidi Crowter and rejects the imposition of abortion legislation which extends to all non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome.”

The regulations are unwise. Seventy-nine of the 90 MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly voted against abortion on the grounds of non-fatal abnormalities. Despite that, the regulations permit abortion up to birth on the grounds that the unborn child has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, a cleft lip or palate, or a club foot. If we vote the regulations through, what does that say to the people in Northern Ireland about how we view their opinion? Even more importantly, what does it say to those disabled people in that part of our kingdom, indeed in the whole of our kingdom, about how we regard them? I say it would broadcast loudly and clearly that we do not regard them very highly at all.

Furthermore, the regulations go much further than the requirements set out in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and further than the provisions that apply in England and Wales. Specifically, they allow for abortion on demand without certification through to 12 weeks, which will allow sex-selective abortion to be available during that period. It is the first time that no ground for abortion has been allowed up to 12 weeks. Some will say, “Well, that won’t happen. That’s alarmist. Why on earth would people abort a child on the basis of its gender?” I do not share that uncynical view, because we know there are cases where people have done so, and there are places in the world where that is common. We do not want it happening here, and anything that risks it should, frankly, send a shiver down the spine of any member of the Committee.

Indeed, the Government have curiously—I would go so far as to say remarkably—chosen to impose on Northern Ireland a more permissive regime than the one that applies in England and Wales. I do not have time, and you would not permit me, Sir David, to go through all the areas in which the regulations are more liberal than the regime that applies to the rest of the kingdom. That raises the issue of consistency, certainty and clarity—all used as arguments in favour of the regulations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who has now left. How bizarre—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is back; her ears must have been burning. If it is clarity, certainty and consistency that we want, why on earth would we want to impose a different regime in Northern Ireland from that which prevails elsewhere?

Yet there is a substantially different regulatory approach to abortions proposed for Northern Ireland from that in England and Wales. The Northern Ireland regime will allow all GP surgeries to be approved locations to do abortions, allowing this serious procedure to take place in a dramatically increased number of locations compared with England and Wales.

[Carla Lockhart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the legislation has no reference to inspections of places where abortions can take place, which leaves difficulty in managing where they can and will take place?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is true, too. It is also true that whereas an abortion can be carried out in England and Wales only by a doctor, the regulations extend that. The issue of home abortions, with the woman taking a pill—there has been quite a lot of publicity in the national press in the last few weeks about how that can go wrong—is also catalysed by the proposed changes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am concerned about what the right hon. Gentleman just said. The past president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Professor Lesley Regan, has made it clear that the safety of women taking tablets at home is not to be disputed. He needs to consider what he said about things in the press, because that is not backed up by scientific or professional evidence.

[Sir John Hayes]

Up until now, we have taken the view as a Parliament that, because abortion is a serious matter, there should be a structure and framework governing where it takes place that maximises the prospect of the safety that the hon. Lady and I want to guarantee. That is why we put it into the hands of medical professionals, and put limits on the places where it can happen. That is why we have a legal framework, and prohibit—indeed, penalise—abortions that take place outside it. My anxiety, like hers, is about guaranteeing safety and security, and I believe that that is done by the existing provisions. We therefore do not need to change them.

I want to reflect on a point that I have touched on briefly already about non-fatal disabilities. I find it deplorable that, in contradiction of all the notions of equality that we rightly promote in the 21st century, a child diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, a cleft lip, a cleft palate or a club foot can continue to be aborted. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, that clearly discriminates against disabled people. The last time that abortion regulations in England and Wales were examined in real depth was 1990, before the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010. That is why, as I said earlier, I am pleased that a Bill is being introduced that will address that inequality. These regulations permit abortion up to birth on the grounds that the unborn child has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, a cleft lip, a cleft palate or a club foot in Northern Ireland. Where a child is capable of being born alive in Northern Ireland, this law will permit different treatment of those with disabilities and those without disabilities. That lawful discrimination will continue until the child is born. If this House were to endorse these regulations, we would be endorsing discrimination on the basis of disability. We would be endorsing applying the Equality Act to some and not all. We would effectively be saying that some lives matter less.

In conclusion, I urge Members to reject these regulations for two main reasons: devolution and equality. They are unconstitutional, and may actually be illegal—I have not got time to pursue that at great length, but that is certainly the view of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; the question of whether they are legal was asked earlier; he certainly thinks that they are not.

[Stephen Farry]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not, because I am about to reach my exciting peroration, but I will happily send the hon. Gentleman the advice if he has not seen it already.

On the grounds of devolution and promoting and protecting the interests of people with disabilities, we should reject these regulations. They are unwise, unconstitutional and unwanted. If that has not persuaded members of this Committee, let me finish not with my words but those of Heidi Crowter, a 24-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome who, when reflecting on the regulations that I imagine some people on this Committee plan to vote for, said:

“it makes me feel like I shouldn’t exist”.

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, as we debate these important regulations. This is an opportunity for this House to come together an uphold the human rights of all UK citizens. I start my contribution by paying tribute to the work that many have done to get us to this point. I thank the Minister, who has been patient and diligent and listened to all sides of the debate on this matter before arriving at these regulations. I also thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who has been an incredibly diligent and thoughtful advocate for the importance of getting these regulations right. I thank my colleague and hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who has been a stalwart campaigner for the right of a woman to have the equal right of a man to choose what happens to her body—unfortunately, this is still a contested issue in 2020. I thank the former Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who gave a brilliant speech earlier today about the things she heard and the work that Committee did.

Above all, I thank the many voices from Northern Ireland who have been able to be heard over the past couple of years, in this place and outside, as a result of us as a Parliament taking on something that, for years, people have said was too difficult to deal with. This has been a difficult debate, and I recognise there are strongly held opinions on all sides of the House about this matter, but because we put it in the “too difficult” box, we have denied the voices of thousands of women in Northern Ireland who have been speaking about their human rights. That has changed over the past couple of years, and I pay tribute in particular to the Alliance for Choice, the London Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, Amnesty International and Together for Yes, as well as women such as Sarah Jane Ewart, who have been incredibly powerful and brave in telling their story about the consequences of this legislation.

These regulations are needed because almost a year ago, this House recognised that it was important to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which put having an abortion in the same category as child-stealing and using gunpowder to blow this place up. However, repealing those sections was only 50% of treating every single woman in the UK as an equal citizen. We need these regulations to clarify what the provision of abortion in Northern Ireland is. I stand with the hon. Member for North Down, who is very welcome in this place and has clearly stated the simple truth that not regulating for abortion—banning abortion—does not stop it happening, but means that it happens in an unsafe manner. It puts lives at risk.

We know that for generations, Northern Ireland has been exporting its need for abortion to the rest of the United Kingdom. We know women who have had to make that horrific journey under horrific circumstances: not just Sarah Jane Ewart, but thousands of women who have had to travel, if they can at all, because they do not want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. At the heart of this regulation is a very simple question: do we have the right to force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy? If we say yes, then of course, we can stand up to those human rights organisations that have told us countless times over the years that we are torturing our own citizens—that is how they have described deciding for somebody else what happens to their body, in this most graphic way. That is why it is right that this place acted, and it is why I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings when he says that this is somehow illegal.

These regulations stem from that moment last year when we recognised our human rights obligations as a United Kingdom, and expressly said that devolution does not deny those rights to some women in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in that moment we were sticking to article 27 of the Vienna convention, which states that a party to a treaty

“may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”

and paragraph 39 of CEDAW’s general recommendation on the core obligations of states, which says that states cannot use their delegated powers to absolve themselves of responsibility to all women. It is clear that for too long, this place has denied its responsibility to the women of Northern Ireland, and today’s regulations put that right. They do so in a sensitive and CEDAW-compliant manner, so that we treat the women of Northern Ireland with the respect we would wish for all women.

We are required to follow the ECHR, and it is right that this place deals with this issue, because it is our law—the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—that created these challenges in the first place. Whatever legislation the Northern Ireland Assembly wishes to bring forward on this matter, which it can do, it could not take action without dealing with that Act, so it is right that this place seeks to act—

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will, but I want to make reasonable progress, to allow the Minister time to answer some of the questions. I give way happily.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want to be clear about this. When the hon. Lady spoke on this subject in the House before the last election, she said clearly that the reason she was advocating what she was, was the absence of Stormont; were Stormont sitting, she would not do so. Now, she is making a completely contradictory argument, that Stormont should never have had the powers at all. If she thought that then, why did she not say so?

[Stella Creasy]

I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have listened to what I said in the House. If we are honest, in debates, it sometimes feels that that is not always the case for those on opposing sides. If he listened to what I said then—and what I say now—it was that devolution did not absolve us of our responsibility. Indeed, the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights cross-cut to Northern Ireland as part of the Good Friday agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman says that we have always devolved this but, I genuinely suggest to him, the absence of legislation on Northern Ireland was in 1967. That was before the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which enshrined the responsibility of this place to uphold the human rights of the people in Northern Ireland, leading to the creation of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which sought to address this issue but, as we discussed, was not able to do so because of a technicality. Does he want to suggest that there is a clear demarcation? Furthermore, I have not yet heard him advocate that other forms of human rights such as on torture should also be delegated to Northern Ireland. We do not do that; we recognise that some rights are universal and that, collectively, we have a responsibility to uphold them.

My point last year was that for too long, because of the absence of the Assembly, this issue had not been addressed. I ask those who today say that we should not agree to the regulations, if not these regulations, where is the alternative? Now that the Assembly is up and running, it can come up with alternative proposals. As yet, it has not.

The risk is twofold: first, the continuation of the abuse of the human rights of the women of Northern Ireland, whereby they are forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy because there is no safe, legal and local service for them; and, secondly, in the absence of regulation, now that we have repealed sections 58 and 59—I agree with Government Members who made this point—there is a gap, a lacuna, in what services are provided that needs to be addressed.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to advocate devolution, he should advocate what CEDAW-compliant regulations the Northern Ireland Assembly should be coming up with, so that we may navigate this terrain of being part of the United Kingdom, of upholding our human rights obligations and of recognising the role of local institutions in identifying how those regulations are provided. He should not be saying simply, “Put it back in the ‘Too Difficult’ box—let’s not go there.”

Having said all that, it is important for us to look at the legislation, at the regulations before us, and I am sure that the Chair wishes me to do so. The regulations implement what polls in Northern Ireland have been telling us for some time: the vast majority of people do not consider this to be a criminal matter but a medical one, requiring medical regulation, which is what the regulations do. That is the view of both the MLAs and the broader public. However, there is common ground to be found: we need to find a medical way of moving forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes the point exceedingly well, and we should listen to her words. This legislation does not protect the rights of women and girls, or of the unborn. It dismisses their rights—that is the fact.

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland has claimed that the Secretary of State has exceeded his authority. That is why the regulations, if and when they are passed, will unfortunately run into further controversy—no doubt they will be challenged. They will not bring an end to a difficult argument or suddenly solve it. We are in the process of dealing with difficult issues all the time, and the suggestion that the regulations end a difficult problem is just complete and total nonsense. If it was so easy, most hon. Members would welcome that. However, in claiming that the Secretary of State has exceeded his authority, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland made the following comments:

“It is doubtful that the legislation gives adequate ECHR protections to the rights of those opposed to these regulations, whether on conscience or philosophical grounds.”

He went on to say:

“It is inappropriate for the provision. In light of the political context that now exists in Northern Ireland, these provisions are actually lawful.”

Let me just complete the quotation. He goes on to say:

“It is disproportionate, contrary to article 9 of ECHR as well as article 8, to require those who undertake ancillary, administrative or managerial tasks to act contrary to their conscience.”

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested that the regulations might be made lawful by reference to a treaty. Will the hon. Gentleman let the Committee know, perhaps by way of a confirmation, that the regulations cite no treaty and relate to no treaty?

[Ian Paisley]

It is absolutely clear that we are not breaching any treaty; indeed, the Minister said so himself when I intervened on him earlier. No treaty is being contravened, and we are under no obligation whatever. We are doing something because it is politically expedient to do something. We are genuflecting to a committee that does not have the standing that the Minister and the Government give to it. That is why there will be many people who echo your words, Sir David—I hope I do not quote you incorrectly—by saying, “I’m confused about how we’ve got ourselves into this position.” If that is the case, these little committees all around Europe—