Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In the past I have voted against this type of measure, and for one overriding reason: namely, the impracticability of effective safeguards. Even if practical safeguards could be erected against external coercion, I have always felt that there was no prospect whatsoever of having effective safeguards against internal pressures on someone to request assisted dying or even euthanasia.

For example, as we have heard, an elderly person in a care home, knowing that the legacy they could bequeath to their children was being reduced by tens of thousands of pounds every few weeks, would be highly likely to feel obliged to ask to die. I cannot conceive of any safeguard against self-sacrifice of that sort, whether for financial reasons or in order no longer to be a burden on one’s nearest and dearest relatives and friends.

However, there is an additional point that I wish to inject into the debate. In my opinion, the key to this dreadfully difficult conundrum—about end of life care, pain and the possibility of assisted dying—lies, or should lie, in the ability of medical personnel to administer effective pain relief even if it shortens the patient’s remaining time. In my view, there should be no bar on the use of painkilling medication, if that is the only way to ease human suffering, even if it leads to a speedier death—hence the frequent references to putting dying people “on an appropriate pathway.”

It was therefore most alarming to me to read a very important paragraph in a letter sent to me in favour of changing the law and voting for the Bill by my constituent, the distinguished broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen, in which she explains that doctors no longer feel able to follow this humane course of action since the atrocious Harold Shipman case, which was briefly alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). If there has been such a change in regulations, as Dame Esther believes, it is imperative that that should be reversed. That is something positive that could come out of the imminent debate.

Another issue that has been touched on more than once is the uncertainty and the postcode lottery surrounding effective palliative care. Dame Esther’s view is that there are some people, who have some conditions, for whom palliative care never can be effective. Other people expressed the view that there is always a way in which painkilling medication can be used in order to prevent suffering. I suspect the answer to that riddle lies in the fact that that painkilling care, in some cases, might lead to a shortening of life.

Therefore, I conclude that there are three issues that should be in our minds. Can safeguards be effective? My answer to that, I am sorry to say, is still no. Can pain be alleviated sufficiently by palliative care? The balance of the argument is in favour of saying “probably yes”, but it is too uneven across the country and would certainly need the sort of investment that would be necessary to set up system that would work for assisted dying. Above all, have doctors the freedom to administer pain relief that may shorten life? We need to know the answer to that question, because if, since Shipman, they have been prevented from taking such merciful measures, that is a classic example of hard cases making bad law. Doctors need to be able to humanely ease people on their last journey, and the country needs to know where the medical profession stands on that central matter to this debate.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In an ideal world, there would be a limitless supply of lawyers who would provide their services to victims and defendants alike, free of charge. Then, the issue of SLAPPs could never arise. We are not talking here about trying to restrict the right of individuals to seek the protection of a court and clear their name of defamatory claims about them.

If that was what we were seeking, I would be something of a hypocrite, because 30 years ago, I had to pursue such a libel action against an impecunious magazine that thought it could get away with saying anything about public figures, no matter how baseless, because it had no assets, so if someone pursued a libel action against it and won, they could never recover the tens of thousands of pounds in costs. That is when the boot is on the other foot: a person who has no assets therefore uses the costs of lawyers against the person they wish to defame.

However, what has happened in more recent times, particularly since the demise of that magazine, because there were other ways of dealing with it, is precisely what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) said in his excellent introduction was an abuse of the legal process—and in particular of the huge costs that apply to hiring lawyers to defend oneself—by what I believe he described as a very small number of very rich people. The solution to this type of problem is therefore for the courts to be able to deal with it at such an early stage that, even though some costs will be unavoidable, the huge threat of unbearable costs will be removed, because a worthless libel claim against an investigative reporter whose story is well founded will be thrown out beforethe vast bulk of the expense can be incurred.

Some hon. Members who were here in the previous Parliament may remember that we had a brief debate on 20 January 2022 dealing with the question of lawfare. I made a couple of interventions on behalf of a former Member of the House, Charlotte Leslie, who faced what was certainly a SLAPP as a result of her not even having published anything, but having privately contacted a number of people, including me, given my then position as the Chair of a Committee that she regarded as relevant to her concerns. She wrote to us to try to do due diligence on an individual who proposed getting involved and investing money in an organisation by which she was employed. Fortunately, in the end, the case failed utterly in court, but only after she had been put through a nightmarish ordeal. I pay tribute to her resilience in coming through that ordeal.

We are of course particularly concerned about vulnerable individuals, but sometimes even large organisations can be subject to the SLAPP technique. If hon. Members look on the internet, they will see that on 12 January this year—on the BBC website, no less—a story headed, “Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower” begins:

“The BBC can reveal that in the period leading up to the broadcast of Trouble at the Post Office, the 2015 Panorama programme featuring the whistleblower testimony:

Experts interviewed by the BBC were sent intimidating letters by Post Office lawyers about their participation in the programme

Senior Post Office managers briefed the BBC that neither their staff nor Fujitsu—the company which built and maintained the Horizon system—could remotely access sub-postmasters’ accounts, even though Post Office directors had been warned four years earlier that such remote access was possible

Lawyers for the Post Office sent letters threatening to sue Panorama and the company's public relations boss Mark Davies escalated complaints to ever more senior BBC managers”.

The article also states:

“The Post Office’s false claims did not stop the programme, but they did cause the BBC to delay the broadcast by several weeks.”

As we all know, the BBC had the resources to resist a major legal action had one ensued.

Only three days earlier than that article on the scandal, there was an article on 9 January 2024 on the website of the Press Gazette, which is the industry-representative body. It commented on the way in which the ITV drama about the Post Office scandal had brought to a wider audience the shocking story of the hundreds of postmasters who were wrongly prosecuted and, indeed, the four who committed suicide as a result.

The article is headed, “Attention to Post Office Horizon IT scandal follows 14 years of dogged journalism”. It rightly pays tribute to the freelance reporter Nick Wallis, who wrote the famous book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, and to two other reporters, Rebecca Thomson and Karl Flinders, who both wrote numerous articles for a much smaller enterprise, a journal called Computer Weekly. In fact, it can be said that the first investigation into Horizon, which was published in 2009, was carried out by Computer Weekly after a year-long investigation by Rebecca Thomson. The investigations editor of Computer Weekly, Bill Goodwin, is quoted as saying that the magazine persisted despite “bullying letters” from the Post Office demanding to know its sources. He said:

“We ignored them. Reaction was muted when the story first appeared but it initiated a slow-burn chain of events that lead to the uncovering of a scandal of enormous proportions.”

I am very grateful to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has already been mentioned in this debate, for providing a little more detail on what Computer Weekly faced. It has supplied me with some further embellishment, as it were, of what I have already recounted. It tells me that the general counsel for the Post Office sent threatening legal letters to Computer Weekly and that the trade magazine’s brave campaign, which continued regardless of the threats, often left it as a lone voice, with other outlets seemingly very reluctant to pick up on the important reporting with which it persisted. One legal letter from 2015 shared with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism threatened Computer Weekly over an article that said the Post Office closed a working group responsible for looking into claims against the Horizon software. The general counsel claimed that the article included a “significant number of inaccuracies” and “damaging errors” and argued that the reporters had acted improperly, stating:

“We are most concerned that Computer Weekly chose to publish this highly damaging article without taking the proper steps to verify the information.”

The letter acknowledged that Computer Weekly had amended its article to include Post Office comments, yet it persisted with the threats:

“You should not underestimate the seriousness with which the Post Office views the publication of such damaging and inaccurate allegations. The steps taken by you in response to this letter may well influence Post Office’s decision as to any further steps it may take to protect its reputation.”

It has now emerged that the Post Office took multiple aggressive actions to shut down the story about its failures over prosecutions that were sparked by the faulty Horizon software. The scandal only really spread into the mainstream press after the breakthrough moment in 2019 when Alan Bates and 554 litigants took a civil case against the Post Office to the High Court, which they won a couple of years later. Even then, as was said earlier, the full story was not widely known until the 2024 ITV drama was broadcast.

In response to what the Bureau of Investigative Journalism stated, the Post Office now sings a welcome different tune. It says that the organisation is committed to supporting the ongoing public inquiry and that it is fair and right for the Post Office to be held to account by journalists. It says:

“The approach of the Post Office today regarding communications is based on the knowledge that we must apologise sincerely, learn from the past, be transparent with stakeholders, and support justice and redress for those who have been impacted.”

It also says that it is actively exploring additional ways to strengthen transparency.

That is all well and good, after the Post Office fought so hard to cover up what had happened and close down the story of the scandal, but I will close as I began by saying that any SLAPP legislation is not meant to give anybody carte blanche to say anything they like on the basis of no evidence—to smear, belittle or denigrate people simply because they wish to target them for whatever reason. The purpose of such legislation is to stop people who know perfectly well that the accusations against them are well founded, as the Post Office knew, but who nevertheless persist in abusing the legal system because of the horrendous threat of costs that will drive people to bankruptcy or to surrendering in the face of possible bankruptcy before the issue ever gets resolved in court. Central to any SLAPP legislation must be a simplification process that ensures that a worthless case—a case with no evidence; a case that is truly a SLAPP—is thrown out at the earliest possible opportunity before unbearable costs are incurred.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that in our safer streets mission, improving confidence in the criminal justice system is one of the key outcomes we are focused on. He is right to make the point that the whole criminal justice system requires stabilisation. It all needs to be put on a better trajectory than the one we inherited from the previous Government. We are talking in detail about prisons, but it is difficult to divorce what is happening in our prison system from what is going on in probation and the courts. I reassure him that I conceive of this as a whole-system approach. I am aware of the challenges in other bits of the system; they are things that this Government will ultimately sort out.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor speaks with great clarity and determination on this issue, and I am sure that she will remember last week promising me a ministerial meeting involving my constituent, Andrew Duncan, and a specialist team. They are working on a new concept of community detention that I believe is tailor-made for the vision that the Lord Chancellor has outlined to us today. Can she confirm that the meeting will go ahead, notwithstanding the extra opportunity to give evidence to the Gauke review in due course?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I knew immediately that the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask about the meeting he referenced last week, when I made my other statement. I assure him that I will follow that up. I am interested in the work of the group that he mentions, and I am sure that the sentencing review panel will also be interested in it.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I have many such instances of unacceptable delays for hearing cases in my own constituency caseload. I hope that the measures that I have announced today will begin to ease some of that pressure, because making this change will free up around 2,000 sitting days in the Crown court. This Government have funded an additional 500 beyond the concordat process agreement that was reached by the previous Government in June. I am determined to make more progress in dealing with the Crown court backlog so that constituents such as my hon. Friend’s do not have to wait so many years for their cases to be heard and, ultimately, for justice to be done.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I reach out across the party divide to say that I warmly welcome what the Justice Secretary said about punishment and rehabilitation? By coincidence, I have just written to her—she will not have seen the letter yet—about the work of my constituent, the publisher Andrew Duncan, in co-ordination with a panel of experts that includes a psychology professor, a former governor of Pentonville, a Probation Service specialist in reducing reoffending and a central London magistrate, on a new concept of community detention. My request is that either she or the Minister she thinks most appropriate will agree to have a meeting with my constituent, a few members of his team and me. As a right-of-centre politician, I am sometimes sceptical of alternatives to prison. This one sounds really interesting, and I think it would not be a waste of her time.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Member for the spirit in which he made his remarks. I hope that where consensus is possible on a cross-party basis across this House, we are able to work together, because this is a national problem that will require us all to come together to solve it. I will track down his letter and ensure that he gets a full response and a meeting.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I have been very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the care and attention that she has given to this sensitive area over many months and years. We will continue to work with her so that this can be the best possible advocate. It is important to note, however, that whatever we provide will be a massive step forward. We do of course want to get it right, and I commit myself to working closely with the right hon. Lady in order to do so.

Finally, the Parole Board will be required to include members with a background in law enforcement in order to help parole panels make better decisions when assessing risk.

The legislation laid out in the Gracious Speech is an ambitious, long-term vision for our country. It builds on our record over the last 13 years to make our country safer than ever. It is a programme rooted in evidence; a programme that responds to the anger and distress that we all feel about crime, and that does so with measures that actually drive it down. We will ensure that the most dangerous offenders spend longer in prison to protect the British people from harm, and to protect women and girls in particular. We will equip the police with powers to fight the latest criminal trends that blight our communities, and we will ensure that law enforcement has the confidence of the public while pulling every lever to reduce offending, because that is what keeps the British people safe.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Alex Chalk]

At the death, I will give way.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I detected that my right hon. and learned Friend had reached the closing part of his peroration, so I wanted to ask him to address one concern that I have about the policing of demonstrations. As it happens, I think the police made the right call about 11 November, given the law as it stands. What concerns me is that three weeks earlier, on 21 October, a planned demonstration in Golders Green to pray for Israel and the Jewish people was called off after the police advised that it would be subject to intimidation or violence from people who were representing it as a threat against Muslims holding a demonstration for Palestine seven miles away. Does it not concern my right hon. and learned Friend that a peaceful demonstration should be called off in the face of intimidation, and is it not a matter of concern that the people who made the online threats that led the police to give that advice have not, as far as I have learned, been in any way questioned, sought or prosecuted?

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my right hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful point. On the basis of what he has said, that does seem troubling. I do not know all the details, of course, but the fundamental point is that anyone in our community, whether they are Jewish or otherwise, should be able to practise their faith without let or hindrance. I am grateful to him for raising that. If there are measures that need to be followed up to protect our vulnerable communities, they should be.

The Criminal Justice Bill focuses on the evidence—the evidence of what works and the evidence of what keeps the British people safe. Sometimes that will mean people being locked up for longer, and we make no apology for that. Sometimes it will mean ensuring that those who are capable of being redeemed are being redeemed. That is how we drive down reoffending, and that is how we protect the British people. I commend the Government’s programme to the House.

Prison Capacity

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman made some fair points, and I will get back to him.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor is clearly well on top of this subject, so may I bowl him a couple of googlies? What safeguards will there be to prevent deported foreign criminals from coming back here if they are not imprisoned overseas? Will he be very careful before going down the road of plea bargaining, as in the States, whereby there is a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty because of the huge disparity in the sentences they may receive?

[Alex Chalk]

To take the second point first, I am so pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that. There are certain things that really are important in our jurisdiction: first, we do not do plea bargaining; secondly, we do not have political appointment of judges; and, thirdly, we have a jury system. These are incredibly important things. We do not talk about them enough in this Chamber, but they are immensely important to our basic freedom. I was delighted to hear that and, yes, he can be sure that we are not going down the road of plea bargaining.

On the point my right hon. Friend makes about ensuring people cannot come back, that is precisely the point. It is not just and it is not sensible to have people costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money in British prisons if, when they are out, they are never coming back anyway. That is central to our plan to ensure that, as we expand the ERS window, we put in place every necessary measure—in compliance or in consultation with our international counterparts—to ensure that once people are out, they are never coming back.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I will make a bit of progress and then I will of course come to the right hon. Gentleman.

As I indicated, the Bill takes steps to strengthen the system further. First, it will make public protection the pre-eminent factor in deciding which prisoners are safe for release, by introducing a codified release test in law. Secondly, it will impose a new safeguard— a new check and balance—in respect of the top tier of the most serious offenders, drawn from murderers, rapists, child killers and terrorists. In those cases where there is a Parole Board recommendation to release a prisoner, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to intervene on behalf of the public to stay that release and enable Ministers to take a second look. That oversight will act as a further safeguard in the most serious cases that particularly affect public confidence. Plainly, of course, to preserve fairness in the system that ministerial intervention must be amenable to independent review, and the Bill properly safeguards that right.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved promotion. I have recently been contacted by a constituent who discovered the murdered bodies of her sister and baby niece. She is a volunteer with a national charity called Support after Murder and Manslaughter. It has given me a list of concerns, which I would like to give to the Minister separately. However, the charity states that the Secretary of State will be able to make this parole decision, which will then be subject to appeal, but the victims will not have a voice at either stage—they will not be able to do impact presentations. Will the Minister look at this point again, because the victims feel that they are being excluded?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important matter on behalf of his constituents. The interests and rights of victims are absolutely at the heart of this proposal, because—this shone out from a conversation I had only today— some victims who are concerned about whether a prisoner gets released are of course concerned about what has happened to their family, but they are also worried about what might happen to others. That is why having public confidence in the safety consideration is so important. I will be happy to discuss my right hon. Friend’s points with him, but I emphasise that the rights of victims and the protection of the public are at the heart of this important measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little progress, as I want to speak for roughly the same amount of time as the shadow Minister, to be fair to her.

The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for Rotherham, for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton), all spoke movingly, powerfully and personally about their interactions with the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton spoke movingly about her experience of domestic abuse, and the whole House will admire the courage shown by all Members who spoke in such very personal terms. The hon. Member for Canterbury, in particular, demonstrated a huge amount of courage in giving a powerful and emotional speech, and she spoke for many who perhaps do not have the ability to speak for themselves in conveying what she did. She touched on third-party material, as did a number of hon. and right hon. Members, and that is one reason why I welcome the additional step we have announced today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who was my ward colleague on Westminster City Council for a while, invited me to meet Charlie Webster. I know Charlie from my previous incarnation in the Department, when we visited a number of services together. I am always happy to meet Charlie, and my office may already be trying to arrange a meeting. My hon. Friend also touched on her support for the IPA, which I very much welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Rotherham touched on the recent debate, and my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, on prisoners changing their name. I hope to be able to meet my hon. Friend very soon to discuss the matter, and if the hon. Lady wishes to attend that meeting, I am always happy to see her, as I was when last we worked together.

Like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I pay tribute to Claire Waxman, with whom I have worked very closely in both my previous and my current role in the Department. The hon. Lady also mentioned Sammy Woodhouse, and I believe I engaged with her on the issues raised by Sammy last time I was in the Department and, like her, I am pleased to see the progress we have made in this space.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was typically thoughtful, but I gently say to her that we have engaged throughout with the Welsh Government on the victim provisions. Indeed, back in early December, I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton received a letter from Mark Drakeford thanking him for the close engagement with the Welsh Government on this Bill, and we will continue to engage on the newer provisions, such as the IPA. As with the Health and Care Act 2022, I am happy to engage with Welsh Government Ministers.

Finally, the hon. Member for Walthamstow asked for clarification on the definition of a victim. I hope I have given her some reassurance that, whether or not a crime is reported, an individual can still come into the orbit of the victims code. One thing she uniquely mentioned, which I will look at with her if she wishes, is the overseas angle. I am always happy to engage with her, and this time it is not about the private finance initiative in hospitals.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Among the long list of points the Minister addressed, I did not hear the one about murderers who refuse to appear in person in court to face their accusers and their sentencing. Does he think that that would be within the scope of this Bill?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. My understanding is that that would probably not be within the scope of this legislation, but he will have seen that the previous and current Lord Chancellors have been clear in their determination to explore legislative options to address exactly that issue.

I very much look forward to engaging across the Committee Room with the shadow Minister and indeed with all those on the Committee, because genuinely important views have been expressed today, from particularly personal perspectives and with particular angles on elements of this legislation. That has been underpinned by a determination on both sides of this Chamber to make this work and a commitment to making the Bill an effective piece of legislation. I approach it in that spirit, as I hope the Opposition will.

As I bring the debate to a close, I say again that victims are not bystanders. Their views and experience matter greatly. They deserve to be treated with respect, compassion and dignity at every turn in the criminal justice system. It is only with their engagement and immense bravery in coming forward that we can bring criminals to justice and make our streets safer. That is why we have acted. That is why the Bill will put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong, so that every victim’s voice is heard, every victim gets the support they need and every victim is empowered to seek the justice they deserve. This is about giving victims, and the British public, confidence that the parole system will keep them safe. We will ensure that they are listened to. We will ensure that justice is done. We will work to ensure that more criminals are caught and brought to justice, which is why we are delivering today on our manifesto promises to bring this legislation before the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

VICTIMS AND PRISONERS BILL: PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Prisoners Bill:

Committal

1, The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 July 2023.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Victims and Prisoners Bill: Money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Prisoners Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Victims and Prisoners Bill: Carry Over

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Victims and Prisoners Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Prison Capacity

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a devolved policy matter, but I am open—indeed, keen—to speaking to colleagues in the devolved Administrations and other jurisdictions. I always say that there is no practical limit to how much we can all learn from each other.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I believe that the Government have fulfilled their promise to end the automatic release of prisoners halfway through their sentences. Am I right in thinking that that will have added a certain amount of pressure on cells and accommodation? To what extent has pressure been increased by that policy? Can the Minister assure the House that there is no question of people being released earlier than they otherwise should be as a result of such pressure?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes—twice. We are not embarking on the policy that the previous Labour Government instituted in 2007, along the lines that my right hon. Friend mentioned. He is also right that a later point of release does add pressure. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a mathematical factorial answer on that, but he is right to identify that as one factor. This is about keeping inside those people who have committed the most serious offences.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is incredibly generous in giving way. I applaud the tone in which she is presenting this case. The problem that some of us are grappling with is that, in America, what appears to have happened is that the Supreme Court had its political complexion changed and therefore came to a different decision. I, for one, regret the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Having said that, it therefore seems strange, as my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), has said, to suggest that we should move away from the system that we have where Parliament decides what should and should not happen on a matter of policy of this sort, and hand it over to judges for whatever interpretation of the law they may choose to come up with.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Again, that is a valid point that we can debate and discuss today. Does the policy being enshrined in a Bill of Rights actually work? Is that the political lever that is necessary? I do not necessarily believe that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the gracious tone in which she introduced the debate—it is so right, on such a sensitive issue. It is encouraging to note how many colleagues are in the Chamber today to express concern about the wording of this petition, and I join them. The idea of a right to abortion not only conflicts with the established position of international law on the right to life, but would cause huge complications for our domestic law. Including abortion in a Bill of Rights is inappropriate, and likely to result in extensive litigation to establish the extent of such a right. Whatever our views on abortion, the petition is therefore misguided from a legal perspective. I agree with the response of the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who said that there is no strong case for change.

Let me refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Gower, who mentioned just one woman bringing forward this petition. It is true that the petition has been brought in the name of one person, but let us be under no illusion: the move to classify abortion as a human right is part of a well co-ordinated national and international campaign to do so.

First, let me comment on the subject from the international perspective and make a few points about the robust protection of the right to life in international law, and the explicit rejection of the so-called right to abortion. It is important to start with that perspective, because we have heard it said that the UK must adopt more expansive abortion laws because of international law—but why should we? We are not under any obligation to liberalise abortion laws from international legal texts. None of the nine core treaties recognised by the UN have recognised abortion as a human right. By common definition, human rights are inherent or inalienable rights or freedoms afforded to every person without discrimination. They must be upheld and protected by Governments, and I am sure that any new Bill of Rights in this country will seek to robustly uphold those fundamental rights, but international texts on human rights have never included abortion. I shall reference that with four points.

First, the international covenant on civil and political rights affirms the inherent right to life. It contains a provision explicitly to protect the life of a pregnant woman. In the preparatory texts, or travaux préparatoires —I think I have nearly got the French right—it is explained that that is to

“save the life of an innocent unborn child”.

Secondly, the declaration of the rights of the child states that

“the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth…the need for such special safeguards has been…recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

That quote from the declaration of the rights of the child was confirmed by the convention on the rights of the child.

The UK has ratified all three of those treaties. Indeed, the preamble to the convention on the rights of the child was very much the impetus behind our landmark Children Act 1989. Under that convention, all countries are obligated to

“ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”,

including the unborn child.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I have been listening to both sides here and I am not hearing an answer to one question that seems to me fundamental: at what point does a fertilised egg become a viable human being with rights? From one side, I am not hearing any recognition that a baby about to be born is actually viable and has rights; and from the other side, I am not hearing that a newly fertilised egg is not yet a viable human being and therefore does not have the same rights as a human being. It is going to be a dialogue of the deaf until both sides recognise that this is a spectrum and not an either/or.

[Fiona Bruce]

That discussion has been ongoing for a long time. Many in this room hold different views on the subject. I happen to believe that life begins at conception, but I know that others take a different view.

Thirdly, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, CEDAW, also does not advance any concept of a right to abortion. Nowhere in the text does it reference terms such as “reproductive rights”, “pregnancy termination” or “abortion”. Instead, it requires states to provide suitable care and services for women during pregnancy. Fourthly, the former UN special rapporteur for health has told the UN General Assembly that there is no international law on the matter of abortion.

It is also important for us to note that the European Court of Human Rights has never ruled that countries in the Council of Europe need to consider abortion as a human right, even though it has considered the matter several times over the past 20 years. Three points are relevant here. First, the Court has affirmed that article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to a private and family life, cannot be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion. I will quote from a 2010 case:

“The woman’s right to respect for her private life must be weighed against other competing rights and freedoms…including those of the unborn child”.

Secondly, the Court has ruled that forced abortions are a breach of article 3—the prohibition on torture—noting that forced abortions can have

“long-lasting negative physical and psychological effects”

on women. Thirdly, the Court has reaffirmed that there is no actual right to abortion, even in the—I accept—tragic case of rape.

The UK really is under no pressure from the UN or from the European Court of Human Rights to reform its abortion law by classifying abortion as a human right. I would now like to consider the issue from the domestic perspective. I know that we have already had a lengthy discussion of the subject during today’s debate, but I would like us to acknowledge how chaotic it would make our laws here if we included abortion as a right—as a human right.

We have already had the discussion, and there are different views on what a right to abortion would mean. Would it equate to the wholesale decriminalisation of abortion? Would it create an absolute right to abortion? Could it mean the removal of gestational limits, allowing abortion up to birth? Could it mean abortion based on the gender of the foetus or the removal of medical safeguards, including the involvement of doctors? Would it mean the erosion of conscience rights for medical professionals? All of those questions would be thrown up.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to speak in this debate, which was so elegantly introduced by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).

There are two things to look at. First, there is the question of the Bill of Rights, which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said I might mention, because this issue is about trying to impose an American construction on the British constitution and I do not think that in that sense it actually works. For example, it is much forgotten that the British Bill of Rights has a right to bear arms for the maintenance of a Protestant militia, which may be more welcome among some Opposition Members than it is for me personally. I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nodding in favour of having a Protestant militia. The second amendment to the similar US Bill of Rights—the US constitution—maintains the right to bear arms, again for the purpose of a militia, and that has become an absolute in the US constitution, whereas our right to bear arms has been gradually changed by Parliament over the centuries, so that it is completely controlled.

I do not, then, really see what the petitioners are trying to achieve in what they ask for. They want the right to abortion to be particularly protected, but what they are talking about is not a protection: it is protection protectionless, because any subsequent Act of Parliament could automatically change it in whatever way Parliament decided. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) correctly pointed out, there is no greater protection than something being in an Act of Parliament, and that is already the situation that exists. There is not a majority in Parliament to change that. Whether there is a majority in the country at large—we have heard about some opinion polling—who would like to see it changed is another matter, and a matter for debate. However, the law is as solid as it can be from the point of view of those who are in favour of abortion legislation as it is.

The petition therefore misfires on those grounds alone. It would make no sense to introduce this matter into the Bill of Rights that the Government are bringing forward. The Bill actually deals with the relationship between the Executive, the legislature and the courts, rather than trying to move to a codified constitution which, as far as I am aware, is not the policy of His Majesty’s Government. If it were, I am not sure I would support it. The Bill of Rights, as proposed, is a sensible step towards establishing how the Executive and the judiciary relate now that we no longer have the European Court of Justice sitting above us. The Bill is not right for the particular proposition brought forward by the petitioner.

There is then the issue of abortion itself, which obviously underlies this whole debate. To me, it is the greatest sadness that the number of abortions that take place each year take place. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out that there were 214,869 last year. I think all sides would agree that this is a matter of the deepest sadness. There is nobody who welcomes abortion or wants there to be this very high level of abortion. Think of it over the period since the Abortion Act came in: more than 10 million babies have been aborted. We know that there are more than 100,000 people alive today in Northern Ireland who would not otherwise be alive had Northern Ireland had the Abortion Act like the rest of the United Kingdom. We know this to be true because pro-abortionists complained about this claim to the Advertising Standards Authority. As I understand it, the Advertising Standards Authority said that the number being claimed was actually lower than the reality, instead of being overstated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said that we cannot look at it in terms of numbers of cities and people like that, but we can. There are more than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland who are alive today who would not be alive had Northern Ireland had the abortion rules that we have in England, Wales and Scotland. That seems to be a modern tragedy: this number of people had no opportunity for a life because they were ripped untimely from their mother’s womb. Think of that number: 214,869. In a four-year period, the destruction of life is as a great as it was in the four-year period of the first world war. Those are the numbers we are dealing with. That is the tragedy of abortion.

[Dr Lewis]

May I slightly correct what my right hon. Friend has just said? It is not the destruction of life, in many cases, but the destruction of potential life—unless one agrees, as I think my right hon. Friend would, with our hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), that life begins at the moment of conception. However, most people do not agree with that: they believe that life develops during the course of gestation. That is why my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), is right when he says that the embryo acquires rights along the way, not from the outset.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises the question of the viability of life. The viability of life—when does that start, Sir Charles? When do you think a life becomes a fully independent created life? Perhaps my right hon. Friend thinks we should be like the ancient Romans in their treatment of the newborn baby. St Macrina rescued newborn babies who had been exposed in ancient Rome because their life was not viable without intervention and support. They were allowed to die, until the early Christians, who were thought to be peculiar for doing so, went and saved them. It was particularly the case, as it happens, with disabled babies. We know that the abortion laws we have allow for the full-term abortion of babies with minor disabilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out. This is the tragedy of abortion and its destruction of life. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East wants to quibble about when life begins. I accept that this is perhaps more a theological question about what is the start of life, but that new embryo has the potential for life. It has been formed as a separate being that is separate and different from the parents from which it came.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The job of doctors is to save life. It is quite clear that an ectopic pregnancy that may threaten the life of the woman carrying the baby is a case where an intervention may be made to save the life of the woman. That is a perfectly traditional and acceptable understanding of how to maximise the saving of life, while not pretending that there is not life, because there is. There are two lives.

[Dr Lewis]

I will not keep intervening, but I take slight objection to the use of the word “quibble”. I readily acknowledge that there is vast uncertainty and a grey area about the point, or at least the part of the spectrum, at which potential life becomes a viable human being. Just because we cannot identify an exact point in the process does not mean that, at the beginning of the process, the fertilised egg is only a potential human being without the same rights as the viable human being at the end of the process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The viable point is one that my right hon. Friend admits he cannot define, but there is a clear point of conception where there is a new genetic entity. It is unbelievably clear and straightforward. To say that there is some later date—it may be 21, 22 or 24 weeks—is not the heart of the argument. The heart of the argument is actually that this new life started at the point of conception. The tragedy is the 214,869 lives lost last year.

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Gareth Johnson]

I will, but I want to get through all of this, so very briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I just want to save the Government from a possible pitfall. Does the Minister not realise that the likelihood is that the people present in this Chamber tonight will table amendments to the Bill and then the Government would be in the invidious position of having to vote against them even if they agreed with them? Let us avoid that by getting it into the Bill in the first place.

[Gareth Johnson]

I hope, and I hope it is not a naïve hope, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will work with the Ministry of Justice on this, because we do intend to legislate on the issue.