Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(5)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

On both issues, it is clear that we will take action should the deadline be reached, but I think that both issues would be best addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly taking responsibility itself and delivering on the requirements. I support the right to same-sex marriage and have voted for it consistently, but I would prefer that locally elected representatives were able to deliver it in the most suitable way, no doubt arguing about it passionately and with conviction on all sides.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Can the Minister indicate what he feels might happen in March 2020, should the Assembly not be up and running?

[Mr Walker]

In March 2020, should the Assembly not be up and running, the regulations that we are required to bring forward under the Act would come into effect. I will go into more detail on those requirements in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I do not think there is a difference across the House in wanting to see the Stormont Assembly and Executive up and running. We all agree that it is important that the people of Northern Ireland have that Government restored. We also think, however, that the women of Northern Ireland deserve some honesty about what will happen to their human rights, which, in this House in July, we pledged to uphold. Tonight, the Minister has shown what most of us feared might happen—the slow unpicking of the commitment the House made to ensure that we treat all UK citizens equally when it comes to their ability to make choices about their own bodies.

For the avoidance of doubt, let us set out some clear principles. It is written in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 that this is about the Executive reforming, not the Assembly. Let us be specific: it is about having a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and 10 Ministers with departmental responsibilities by the end of next Monday—nothing less, nothing more. That is not the preserve of the Government, or one single party, to deliver. It is about power sharing. There is absolutely nothing in the Act about mandating the Assembly to take on the legislation post 22 October. Indeed, it would be bizarre, given hon. Members’ concerns, to uphold the role of the Assembly and then direct it to take over the legislation.

There is plenty in the Act about the importance of the role of the Secretary of State, and I quote section 9(7):

“The Secretary of State must carry out the duties imposed by this section expeditiously, recognising the importance of doing so for protecting the human rights of women in Northern Ireland.”

What does that mean in practice? What have we seen over the past couple of days, with this sudden flurry of interest in trying to get the Executive up and running?

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here, because I had hoped that he would account for his words on Twitter—[Interruption.] I had hoped that he would account for his words because he said something very powerful and threatening. He said that he understood that Church leaders were worried about abortion reform and that he would be

“working all week…to ensure that I do everything I can to encourage political leaders to get back into an Executive and ensure that they can shape the abortion laws for Northern Ireland.”

People might think that that is a worthy sentiment, but given that if the Assembly is reconstituted by Monday, the regulations on same-sex marriage will also fall, it is telling that he highlighted only abortion. Only women’s rights have become a bargaining chip in the Brexit process.

The Minister tells us that he has been talking to women’s groups, but he cannot name a single one. We cannot find a single women’s group in Northern Ireland that has had a meeting with the Secretary of State, that has been consulted or that the Government have talked to. It is very clear, however, that they are listening to the Churches.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Would it be possible, in the time remaining, for those who advise the Minister to find at least one person whom they have discussed it with, other than the Churches, given that he indicated that many discussions had taken place?

[Stella Creasy]

I hope they can, because then the Minister could answer the words of Lyra McKee’s partner, who said:

“It seems that pleas from people who have seen their loved ones murdered mean a lot less than the demand of church men desperate to repress women.”

Lyra McKee’s family are deeply concerned by the way in which her memory and legacy have been used in the debate.

The Minister has to show us, not just by next Monday, but until March next year, that he is prepared to uphold what is in the legislation about acting expeditiously to protect the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. That is not the same as giving powers to the Assembly to deal with it. That is not what is in the Act. He needs to be honest that that is how the Government now intend to deal with it and get the House’s approval for that.

The consequences of not doing that are very real for women in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that, right now, we cannot tell women in Northern Ireland who might need an abortion how they will access that service next Tuesday. He and I have talked about the issue of pills. We are all worried about women accessing products online that may not be safe. In 1967, when the House legislated to exempt women in England and Wales from prosecution, we did not say, “Look, it’s okay, you can continue to have a backstreet abortion, but at least you will be able to go to a doctor.” We recognised the importance of making sure that people could access safe procedures. Yet it is very clear that that will not be the case for women in Northern Ireland from next week.

Many hon. Members will have heard the brave words of Sarah Ewart, who had to take our country to the High Court because her rights were violated. She had a fatal foetal abnormality and she was not able to seek support in her home nation of Northern Ireland to deal with that. Indeed, when faced with that horrific prognosis, the response that she got from doctors was, “I’m not going to get prosecuted to help you.”

Hand on heart, none of us can say that from next week that situation will change for women in Northern Ireland. Indeed, with hand on heart, many of us have to look Sarah Ewart in the eye, because the Supreme Court has said that it will wait to see what happens with this legislation before acting to see whether the Government have to uphold the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. What a shameful situation that we are still quibbling over treating our fellow UK citizens with dignity and respect, in the way that we would expect for our constituents here in England and Wales.

There is nothing in the legislation that will change the time limits and nothing that will change the existing medical regulations that would allow abortion to take place. It simply removes the criminal element and sees this as a medical matter. It sees women as able to make choices over their own bodies, just as men would wish to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely do not doubt that all sorts of organisations have people in their congregations, in this instance, or in their number who lobby them. Lots of women lobby me every day from Northern Ireland, from every constituency over there represented on these Benches, asking me not to forget about the women of Northern Ireland and asking me to stand and give voice to their voice. I totally understand why Church groups might also want to give their voice. But I have never heard a Secretary of State tell me that they have been discussing this particular clinical health matter with Church groups. I do not mind if they discuss it with Church groups, to be honest, as long as they also discuss it with women’s rights groups: Women’s Aid Northern Ireland, for example, who have very strong opinions on this, specifically in the cases of victims of domestic abuse, or the rape crisis centres in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that every single one of those women’s rights groups, equal to any Church group, was consulted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that was done.

I also ask the Minister how he would feel if he had to have an examination that he felt a little bit uncomfortable about—I will not embarrass him by naming some of them—and he had to get on a plane and go to Belfast to have it, and not just that, but to have any treatment. I ask him now to imagine that he had not had to go to Belfast and that he was in lovely Worcester, a fine place in the midlands, and that he went to the doctor to ask a question about something that was wrong—again, I will not embarrass him, but let us say something about his fertility, or because he did not want to have children any more—and the doctor told him that he could no longer continue the conversation because if he did he would be criminalised. That would never happen here. My husband went to have a vasectomy; if it had happened in Northern Ireland nobody would be criminalised for that, yet when a woman wants to talk about her fertility that is exactly what happens.

[Martin Whitfield]

To take that one step further, what if someone was unable to travel because they did not have any photographic ID, because they had childcare that needed to be taken care of, or because they were in a relationship where, because of its nature, they were desperately worried about the other person finding out the situation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

What a surprising contribution from the hon. Lady—I would have thought that if she believed that, her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament would be advocating it. Instead, we learned recently that Richard Leonard’s keynote policy for Scottish Labour is an NHS pet service.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of arrangements for voter registration for the forthcoming European parliamentary elections in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I am content that the arrangements are robust. The UK Government have worked to ensure that the “register to vote” website, which has been running since 2014, is secure against malicious attacks and robust enough to manage traffic in line with registration deadlines.

[Martin Whitfield]

If it is robust enough, how come only 288 of the 2,000 non-UK EU citizens in East Lothian have managed to register? Is that really the foundation of the Secretary of State’s democracy?

[David Mundell]

If the hon. Gentleman can bring forward details of any citizens who have tried to register but not succeeded in doing so, I will obviously look at that. There have been many campaigns to encourage people to register, and I particularly commend the Daily Record newspaper for its efforts in that regard.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to discuss this matter and to contribute to this debate. The concept of the claim of right dates back to the Claim of Right Act 1689, which referred then to the right of appeal to the sovereign and the monarch against perceived judicial injustice. The 1689 Act gave access to the then Parliament of Scotland where the monarch in Parliament sat. The Act of Union 1707 led to the abolition of the Parliament of Scotland and the right then transferred to the House of Lords, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The concept of that right was taken by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 to grant the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. The idea itself dates back to the thinking of my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, an honourable Member of this House who died far too young, 40 years ago this month.

The claim of right draws on the principle of empowering communities, and it is a criticism only of Governments that they appear far too happy to accept new powers, but are very reluctant to pass them on downwards to their communities, to the local authorities and even lower.

The claim of right has developed into the devolution debate that we have heard today. Again, my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, shared with his great friend, Donald Dewar, a passionate commitment to the cause of Scottish devolution. As Donald Dewar said, articulating Mackintosh’s view, devolution is, at its core, about democratic control. It is the empowering of people; it is not for the nationalistic glorification of the nation state. He said:

“It was never Scotland right or wrong…it is about good government, an equitable democracy that borrows, elevates and creates opportunity for the citizen.”

It is the idea of a union state made stronger by the diversity of its communities and constituent parts rather than creeping uniformity. The shouts of, “Conform! Conform!”, implying that it should all be put in a meat mincer so that it all looks the same, should be battled against.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that very important point. Is not the reality in practice that this Parliament, far from being at odds with the principles of the claim of right, has actually energised and activated the claim of right by repeatedly using the practice of devolving powers down through numerous examples over the past 50 years from the European economic area to the devolution referendums of recent years?

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is right to say that powers have gone down, but, too often, powers stick in one place instead of being handed down. We can look at the crisis in our local authorities in Scotland where they have had powers taken back into centralised government.

We stand here today between a party whose sole aim is a nationalistic independence of flag waving and shouting and a party which, with all respect, failed to see the true potential of devolution. I am talking about the goal of a stronger, kinder Union, a fairer Union in which our communities have a stake not just in the results of a decision but also in the decision-making power. We live in a time of world challenges. A choice was made to stand differently from Europe. It is a decision that saddens me, but it is one that I respect. None the less, we must still stand as part of Europe. The claim of right does not underpin a set type of governance; it is a reality that the form of governance should be influenced by and borrowed from, and it should elevate and create opportunities for the citizens who sign up to it. These words by J. P. Mackintosh stand in testament to the fluid ideas that underpin the demands of a citizen:

“It is not beyond the wit of man to devise institutions to meet these demands.”

Sewel Convention

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, shared with his great friend Donald Dewar a passion—a passionate commitment for the cause of Scottish devolution, even before it had been articulated by many people.

As Donald Dewar said, articulating Mackintosh’s view, devolution is, at its core, about democratic control. It is about empowering people. It is not for the nationalistic glorification of the nation. He said:

“It was never Scotland right or wrong.”

It is about good government. It is about equitable democracy that borrows, elevates, and creates opportunity for the citizen.

Where are we today? I look to the Secretary of State sitting on the Benches opposite. When I asked him why he cannot have talks, he said that there had to be a precondition, which is that something was brought to the table. I say to him, in all honesty, that the people who look upon this House, from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, want a little bit more. He should offer talks without any preconditions. We have heard today that they would be accepted by the Scottish Government, and I think that that is a way forward.

The Sewel convention speaks of respect, and respect that needs to be shown by all parties. We have more in common, so let us sit down and talk, without preconditions or planned stunts. The people of the United Kingdom demand that of this place. The people of the constituency whom I represent demand that. As is written on the threshold of the Donald Dewar room in Holyrood:

“It is not beyond the wit of man to devise institutions”

to make it so.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am clear on what my role is: to stand up for Scotland’s place within the UK and the current constitutional arrangements. That is what I am going to continue to do. Of course SNP Members are not going to like that, because they do not like the existing constitutional arrangement and they want to change it, but I am not changing. I am sticking with that role of standing up for what people in Scotland voted for in 2014.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The past few days have seen the theatrical best of this Parliament, so perhaps the opportunity should now be taken to see the political best. Would the Secretary of State therefore like to stand up and make an open invitation to talks, and then see what the answer is?

[David Mundell]

I have made it clear, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard, that my door is open, as is that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for discussions with anyone, but a constructive proposal needs to be on the table. At the moment, the position of the SNP Scottish Government is not to change from the one they adopted a year ago. We investigated that as recently as Monday; given the constructive approach from Professor Gallagher and Gordon Brown, we reached out to the Scottish Government to find out what their approach was. It was exactly the same: they were not for moving, compromising or changing. Until we can see a situation where movement might arise, although it might be possible to talk I do not anticipate it being possible to reach agreement.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I offer my congratulations to the Petitions Committee and, to some extent, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), on representing half the argument. Most of all, I thank all those who signed a petition, both those who seek a second referendum—38,515 people, of whom 612 came from my constituency—and, indeed, the 221,514 who oppose a second referendum, of whom 3,742 were from East Lothian, making it a pleasure for me to represent that half of the discussion this afternoon.

This summer marked 20 years since Scotland voted decisively for devolved governance. I am sure that hon. Members would welcome me highlighting the constitutional significance of that vote and its impact on Scotland’s politics. Devolution fundamentally changed Scottish democracy. The Scotland Act 1998 was one of the most significant pieces of 20th century legislation, and I am proud that the Labour party passed it, during its time in office. That settlement was only possible because of people like one of my predecessors, the great J. P. Mackintosh, who articulated a vision of Scottish devolution long before many others did so. As the late Donald Dewar said,

“His ideas had a lasting influence”

and he was

“a powerful advocate for devolution...John was something of a prophet, a mighty champion of reform at a time when constitutional change was not an approved and certainly not a fashionable cause. At the core he always placed democratic control, the empowering of the people. He did not base his argument on nationalism. It was not the glorification of the Nation state. It was never Scotland right or wrong. His vision was good government, an equitable democracy, that borrowed, elevated, created opportunity for the citizen.”

Therein lies the truth of the petitions—a desire and a cry for opportunity for citizens.

In 1997 in East Lothian, nearly three quarters of people supported the historic transferral of powers. Devolution was not set in stone: it has rightly been extended and improved along the way. However, the First Minister of Scotland was wrong when she talked about independence as a natural extension of devolution. The people of East Lothian, who backed devolution with a 75% vote, overwhelmingly voted to reject independence; the 62% vote was one of the highest in Scotland. It is clear, therefore, that the people of East Lothian and the people of Scotland want devolved governance but not independence. The majority of people in East Lothian recognise that devolution was created to empower Scotland and the Union, not to pull them further apart.

During the recent general election, I ran on a promise of no second independence referendum. I know that some Members of this House do not agree, but the evidence from across East Lothian was that they did not and do not want a second independence referendum. Of those who cast a vote, 70% voted for a party that did not want a second independence referendum. Twenty years after the devolution settlement, the First Minister spoke of fostering the

“spirit of consensus…achieved in 1997” .

I believe that any future referendum would be in contempt of that consensual spirit, which is why the petitions and this debate are so important. I ask Members to cast their minds back to 2014, after the independence referendum, when the Right Rev. John Chalmers spoke at a hearing in church about reconciliation. He spoke of a “momentous time” that resulted in some being elated and relieved, and others being desperately disappointed. He said it was a

“time to unite, a time to walk together”—

to act with responsibility, maturity and grace, and come together for a common good: the future of their country. Prior to the vote, Mr Salmond championed his “Team Scotland” of negotiators, who would comprise politicians from across the political divide, as well as key experts from outside politics. Its non-partisan membership would demonstrate

“the wish of those of us on the Yes side to move forward in a consensual way once the people have spoken.”

The people spoke. I ask where, then, was the moving forward in a consensual way? The then Labour shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, echoed the words of John Smith about the

“politics of opponents. Not enemies.”

He went on to say it would be important to ensure that Scotland did not “divide more deeply” after the referendum.

Given the turmoil that lies ahead, what we all need is a united Scotland; not the glorification of the nation state, not “Scotland, right or wrong”, but a vision for good government and an equitable democracy—one that should borrow, elevate and create opportunity for its citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

If the facts change, we have the right to change our minds in line with the facts, and we weigh that up going forward.

[Martin Whitfield]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. At the start of this debate, it was indicated that those on the Back Benches would have five minutes, in order to allow everyone to speak. It seems that some people will now lose the opportunity.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That is a point of order for the Chair. My understanding from my predecessor in the Chair is that that was indicative and informative, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that this five-minute speech has so far lasted for 13 minutes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is drawing his remarks to a conclusion.