United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 11

Modifications in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 45, in clause 40, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

“(d) the need to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation in—

(i) the areas of environment, health, agriculture, transport, education and tourism, energy, telecommunications, broadcasting, inland fisheries, justice and security, trade and business development, higher education and sport, and

(ii) any other area that may be agreed by a body established under the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.”

This amendment would aim to build into the Bill the need for ministers to maintain the conditions necessary for North-South co-operation in areas specified under the Good Friday Agreement.

Amendment 48, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

“(d) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland, and

(e) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Ireland to Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would aim to require Ministers to have special regard to ensuring that there are no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland or vice versa

Amendment 41, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) When exercising any functions covered by this Part, any appropriate authority has a paramount duty—

(a) to act without prejudice to all international and domestic law, including the Withdrawal Agreement;

(b) to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland;

(c) to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation;

(d) to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland;

(e) to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.”

This amendment is intended to provide a safeguard so that any actions with respect to Part 5 of the Bill must be consistent with relevant existing international and domestic law commitments, including the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and its Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

Amendment 68, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) Regulations that would introduce new requirements for goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may not come into force without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(1B) No additional official or administrative costs consequent on any regulations of the kind mentioned in subsection (1A) may be recouped from the private sector.

The intention of this amendment is to require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly before trade frictions are imposed on goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and to protect Northern Ireland businesses from paying for any new administrative costs.

Amendment 67, page 31, line 26, at end insert—

‘(2A) On or after IP completion day, an appropriate authority must not exercise any function in a way that would—

(a) result in an existing kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process being used—

(i) for the first time, or

(ii) for a new purpose or to a new extent; or

(b) result in a new kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process—

(i) being introduced, or

(ii) being used.

(2B) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a “GB-NI” check, control or administrative process is one applicable to the direct movement of goods produced in a part of the United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland;

(b) goods are to be regarded as “produced in” a part of the United Kingdom (if not wholly produced there) if the most recent significant regulated step in their production has occurred there.”

(c) an “existing kind” of GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that—

(i) was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day, or

(ii) is the same as, or substantially similar to, one that was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day (the “predecessor”);

(d) a “new kind of” GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that is not of an existing kind;

(e) where an GB-NI check, control or administrative process is of an existing kind because of paragraph (b)(ii), that check, control or administrative process and the predecessor are to be treated as a single function for the purpose of determining whether subsection (1)(a) prevents its exercise;

(f) the purpose for which, or extent to which, a function would be used is “new” if the function has not been used for that purpose, or to that extent, before IP completion day.

(2C) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section so that it applies to a type of movement instead of, or in addition to, a type of movement to which it already applies (whether that type of movement is direct movement or another type of movement provided for by regulations under this subsection).”

The intention of this amendment is to mirror in Clause 40, in relation to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the unfettered access NI-GB provisions in Clause 41.

Clause 40 stand part.

Amendment 69, in clause 41, page 32, line 4, at end insert—

“(c) result in a new cost on an Northern Ireland business in accessing the market or in meeting conditions of sale on the market that would not exist for Great Britain businesses.”

The intention of this amendment is to make unlawful both direct costs and administrative processes and indirect costs such as labelling etc being imposed on Northern Ireland businesses after IP completion day.

Amendment 52, page 32, line 4, at end insert—

‘(1A) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this section applies must have regard to the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Withdrawal Agreement, including in particular the duty to seek resolution of disputes through the Joint Committee.”

The intention of this amendment is to confirm the process agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement as the mechanism for dispute resolution.

Government amendment 61.

Amendment 53, page 32, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).

The intention of this amendment is to omit the disapplication of international domestic law under Clause 45.

Government amendment 62.

Amendment 70, page 32, line 25, after “direct” insert “or indirect”

The intention of this amendment is to include within the definition of “NI-GB check” goods which travel indirectly (via Dublin, for example) from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

Amendment 71, page 32, line 48, at end insert—

‘(5A) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must consult and have regard to the views of the Northern Ireland Executive on the proposed regulations.”

The intention of this amendment is to require the Minister to consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making amending the Clause on unfettered access.

Government amendment 63.

Clause 41 stand part.

Amendment 54, in clause 42, page 33, line 40, at end insert “, and

(c) the need to respect the rule of law.”

This amendment would require Ministers to take into account the rule of law when making regulations about exit procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

Amendment 55, page 33, line 44, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment would remove the provision allowing international and domestic law to be disregarded when regulating exit procedures.

Clause 42 stand part.

Amendment 56, in clause 43, page 34, line 21, after “provision” insert

“while having due regard to the rule of law and human rights”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law and human rights while making provisions under this Clause.

Amendment 57, page 34, line 23, leave out line 23.

This amendment would prevent the disapplication or modification of NI Protocol Article 10 under this Clause.

Amendment 58, page 34, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28.

This amendment would protect, under this section about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, persons having a right of action in respect of aid.

Amendment 59, page 34, leave out lines 41 to 44.

This amendment would stop regulations under this section about NI Protocol Article 10 having the effect that making rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that would otherwise apply in relation to aid, would not be recognised because they are derived from international or domestic law.

Clause 43 stand part.

Amendment 60, in clause 44, page 35, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State must take into account the need to respect the rule of law in considering whether and how to comply with the requirements mentioned in subsection (1).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law in complying with the duty to notify state aid in accordance with Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Clause 44 stand part.

Government amendment 64.

Amendment 31, in clause 45, page 36, line 17, at end insert—

‘(3A) The meaning of “incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” in this Part shall be determined by regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.

(3B) Regulations under subsection (3A) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

(3C) Any draft of regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (3B) must be accompanied by an impact assessment of Her Majesty’s Government’s obligations under international law on Part 5 of this Act.”

This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 32).

Amendment 42, page 36, line 17, at end insert—

‘(3A) If no agreement has been reached before IP completion day between the EU and the United Kingdom on the free movement of goods in both directions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown may lay before each House of Parliament a unilateral interpretative declaration, applicable to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, setting out how interruption of the free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom would not be in accord with the Protocol.”

The purpose of this amendment would be for the Government to utilise a unilateral interpretative declaration in order to preserve free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK without tariffs or controls in the event of no deal.

Amendment 32, page 36, line 18, at end insert—

““incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” have the meaning given in accordance with subsection (3A);”

This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 31).

Government amendment 65.

Amendment 46, page 36, leave out line 20.

This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Amendment 43, page 36, line 27, leave out “whatsoever” and insert

“other than the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights”

This amendment excepts the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights from the definition of “relevant domestic and international law.”

Amendment 44, page 36, line 28, at end insert

“other than the High Court, Upper Tribunal or Court of Session when considering an application for judicial review.”

This amendment seeks to make it clear that nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.

Amendment 47, page 36, line 28, insert —

‘(none) “but excludes any provision of—

(a) the European Convention on Human Rights,

(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,

(c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or

(d) the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.”

This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the legislation specified.

Clause 45 stand part.

Clause 50 stand part.

New clause 6—Duty to seek free movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—

Ministers of the Crown must use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee (established in the Withdrawal Agreement) the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures for goods of Northern Ireland moving to Great Britain, in a manner consistent with the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and other international obligations.”

This new clause, while recognising that under the Withdrawal Agreement export declarations and exit procedures fall under the ambit of the EU Customs Code, would mandate the UK Government to use its endeavours to achieve a waiver for Northern Ireland origin goods moving to Great Britain.

New clause 7—Compatibility—

No power under this Act may be exercised by an appropriate authority unless the exercise (or purpose of the exercise) would be compatible and consistent with—

(a) the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date, or

(b) any domestic legislation or subsequent agreement implementing the Agreement.”

This new clause would aim to ensure that powers could not be used under the Bill if they were incompatible or inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement or its associated documents.

Amendment 78, in clause 10, page 7, line 17, at end, insert—

‘(2A) In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that further exclusions from the application of the access principles have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.

Amendment 79, in schedule 1, page 44, line 40, at end, insert—

‘(6A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.”

The intention of this amendment is to apply the non-discrimination principle to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime.

Amendment 4, in clause 54, page 41, line 24,at end insert—

‘(2A) The relevant sections of this Act come into force in accordance only if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons specifying on which date a relevant section comes into force, and

(b) that motion is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

(2B) The relevant sections for the purposes of subsection (2A) are sections 42, 43 and 45.”

This amendment would prevent any of sections 42 (Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures), 43 (Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol) and 45 (Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc) coming into force before the House of Commons had approved by resolution the date from which they would take effect.

Government amendment 66.

Everyone will know that the call list is very well subscribed, so may I ask at this stage that those taking part show some self-discipline as to the length of contributions made, so that as many MPs as possible may be able to participate in this part of the Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Let me remind the House one more time that there is a very long call list, so please show time restraint when making contributions.

[Mrs May]

It is with some regret that I rise to speak on clauses 41 to 45. May I just say to the Minister that the overall intention of the Bill—of ensuring a functioning internal market within the United Kingdom—is absolutely right? I believe passionately in the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not just a belief; I think it is good for the prosperity of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Today, we are focusing on the parts of the Bill that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister less than a year ago. I can say to the Minister that, in my view, clauses 41 to 45 have no place in this Bill. We are told that they are there because the EU either is acting in bad faith, or might act in bad faith. This is because the withdrawal agreement put a border down the Irish sea and the Government cannot accept that—but the Government did accept that when they signed the withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and I assume that, when they did so, the Government signed that in good faith. Yet here we have clauses 41 to 45 saying that the Government should have the ability to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement to break international law.

There are three reasons why I believe that these clauses have no place in the Bill. The first, which has been referred to in earlier interventions, is that it is unnecessary. There is an arbitration process available. Under article 175, the ruling of the arbitration panel should be binding on the UK and the EU. The Government have acknowledged the existence of the arbitration procedure, but they are saying that they would enter into that in parallel with the operation of the elements of this Bill. The message, it seems to me, is very clear, which is, if we do not like the outcome of the arbitration panel, then we will break international law and we will not accept it. Yet, again, that is breaking the international treaty—an agreement that UK Government signed—because it is breaking article 175, which says that the view of the arbitration panel shall be “binding” on both parties. However, there is not just an arbitration process available. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to, article 16 says:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

Clauses 41 to 45 are not necessary.

Victims of the Troubles: Payment Scheme

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the chance to answer this urgent question, and it is an area on which the Government and Opposition have worked closely and constructively in the past. I share the sense of frustration that is palpable in her question, as does the Secretary of State, and she gave powerful examples of some of the victims who have been affected by the process. We want this scheme to be in place as soon as possible, and to ensure that people begin to see some acknowledgement of the suffering they have undergone.

The UK Government have complied fully with their legal duties by establishing a victims payment scheme in January. We welcomed the opportunity to do so, as we wanted progress on the scheme that has been delayed by political disagreements for too long. It is important to remember that this is a devolved matter, which the Executive were to take forward under the Stormont House agreement, and which they are legally obliged to implement under the provisions of the 2020 regulations.

We take the recent delays in the implementation of the scheme extremely seriously. As I said, the Secretary of State has spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to express his concern, and there have been multiple discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland. He will continue to raise this issue in his regular engagements with them, until such time as all parties, including Sinn Féin, have agreed a way forward.

We will continue to prioritise supporting the Executive in their delivery of the scheme for victims who have already waited too long. Officials from the Northern Ireland Office already provide support to the Executive Office on implementation, by advising officials about the intended effect of policy thinking behind the regulations. We stand ready to provide that guidance to the relevant Northern Ireland Department as soon as it is designated—this is a matter that that designation issue will unlock.

I appreciate the points that were raised about funding, but I wish to be clear that funding for the scheme is, and always was, to come from the block grant. This is a devolved matter, and devolved matters are traditionally funded from the block grant. Northern Ireland receives a generous financial settlement each year from the UK Government. It receives £12.6 billion for the block grant, and since January it has received £2 billion for the “New Decade, New Approach” programme, £1.2 billion in covid-19 support, and £216 million in the March Budget.

The Executive have tried to rely on a technical funding argument that because the UK Government decided the shape of the scheme, they should fund it. They also argued that it is our responsibility because the incidents took place largely during periods of direct rule. We are clear, however, that the Executive committed to establishing a scheme like this one in 2014, and the UK Government acted exceptionally in the absence of the Executive to legislate for it. Those were unprecedented times.

In the 2014 Stormont House agreement, the parties in Northern Ireland agreed that further work should be undertaken to seek an acceptable way forward and deliver on a scheme such as this. In the absence of an Executive, the UK Government consulted widely on our approach, including with the Northern Ireland parties, and in January we legislated to establish the scheme. We acted in a devolved area in exceptional circumstances—we have already heard about that today—and it is for the devolved Administration to fund the scheme. I agree with the hon. Lady that any attempt to reopen questions that have already been settled about the definition of victims, or the role of the independent panel, are totally unnecessary and would upset the vast majority of victims who we want to help with this scheme.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Secretary of State’s total commitment to seeing the Executive make progress on opening this scheme. The Executive are responsible for delivering this much needed scheme, and they must communicate a timetable for opening it urgently. The current delay and lack of clarity cannot be allowed to continue. Victims and survivors have waited too long, and the scheme must open as soon as reasonably practical.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I ask Members to keep their questions as concise as they can, because we have a lot of business today.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I commend the Government for the progress that they have made on this matter. I draw the Minister’s attention to the forthcoming report by Mr William Shawcross. Can he say how much tax has been received by Her Majesty’s Government on transactions involving Gaddafi-related frozen assets? Does he agree that it is morally questionable for the Treasury to be benefiting from those assets while Northern Ireland’s victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism are being short-changed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is spot on, as he so often is. He is very much echoing the point made by those on the Opposition Front Bench that we should not be reopening arguments that have been settled and settled with great impartiality—settled with a really serious consultation process to look at how this could be done in as fair and impartial way as possible, and with a judicial element to that which protects the independence of decision making. I think we have found a way forward here, which is sensible and which can command support of all communities, and we should take it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Minister.

We now come to the potter’s wheel moment—for those of us of a certain age, and I am looking at Julian Lewis. For the safe exit and the safe arrival of Members, and also for any necessary hygiene, I am suspending the session for five minutes.

Abortion Regulations: Northern Ireland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. This was a long and serious consultation in which we engaged with a huge variety of groups, from some of the medical professionals and royal colleges concerned to a number of the campaign groups and church groups from Northern Ireland, and all the parties were approached as part of this consultation. It is very important that we have listened to the views of all sides, but we were always clear, in opening the consultation, that this was about how we did this and not whether we did it, because there was a legal requirement on us to do it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister as we move on to the next urgent question. Exceptionally, if not uniquely, it will be responded to by the same Minister, so we will pause for up to a minute while those who wish to leave the Chamber can do so while safely distancing, and others can occupy their positions.

St Patrick’s Day

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

We will try to do it over three days. The immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), had hoped to come to my constituency, although that will probably not happen because of the coronavirus, but we look forward to getting him down there eventually; it will be a special time.

Apart from me—I have lived there all my life—and other Strangford residents, who knows that we have such world-class golf and spa facilities and playing facilities for children? We must do better at offering what we have, and St Patrick’s day celebrations are a way of doing just that. Will the Minister outline how he believes that that can be achieved and whether some joined-up thinking with local councils and ensuring a Northern Ireland-focused tourism drive can help? Will he confirm the Barnett consequentials of today’s announcement by the Chancellor so that the Northern Ireland Assembly can support businesses? It is important to have that on the record. I am pretty sure that it will be good news, so it would be good to have it in Hansard as a positive response.

It will be apt for me to end with the prayer of St Patrick, which I hope I can in some way replicate throughout my life, knowing that if I emulate St Patrick in loving God and showing his goodness, I will do good and leave my family, friends and countrymen the better for it. The Speaker’s Chaplain recited it this morning, and I want to finish with it:

“Christ with me,

Christ before me,

Christ behind me,

Christ in me,

Christ beneath me,

Christ above me,

Christ on my right,

Christ on my left,

Christ when I lie down,

Christ when I sit down,

Christ when I arise,

Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,

Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,

Christ in every eye that sees me,

Christ in every ear that hears me.”

What better way to finish this debate? I thank the Minister in advance for his comments, and right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions—it would not be an Adjournment debate if we did not have interventions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I’m only joking.

[Jim Shannon]

You have got your intervention into Hansard, Mr Deputy Speaker—thank you.

Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I think the Prime Minister was very clear about his views on those issues yesterday. I have no further comments to make.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Speaker said that this statement should only go on until 12 o’clock; we have now gone past that. A substantial number of people wish to speak in the debate this afternoon, so I am afraid that we are going to move on.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

Please.

Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is not here at the moment but the issue of abortion has been made the centrepiece of this debate. It is very important that we ask Members who support this to think about the framework that would be put in place, or would not be in place, as a result of that amendment if it is supported. There would be no framework for abortion in Northern Ireland. Think of the consequences of that.

No matter what people’s position is—I have a very clear position on abortion; other Members have taken the opposite view and they are entitled to that point of view, as I am entitled to my point of view—the fact and the impact of the matter would be that we would have unregulated abortions taking place in Northern Ireland. They would be so unregulated that we would have no idea of the scope of those abortions. Would the limit start at 12 weeks, as is proposed in the Republic of Ireland? Will it go up to 28 weeks? Will it go to full-term abortion? There is no framework. No one here proposing this could give us an answer on that point because they do not have an answer. The measure would just open the door to unregulated abortion.

Where would abortions take place in Northern Ireland? People might say, “Oh, we can do it the way we do it in—.” Well, I am sorry; there is no regulatory framework to allow it to happen. Who would carry out those abortions? Who would take part in them? These matters need to be properly scrutinised, regulated and legislated for, if that is the way Parliament would choose to go. That is why there has been a convention to leave those matters to the devolved Assemblies—since 1921. This has not just been the case since the 1990s; it has been the case since 1921, because it is at the local level that these matters can be properly regulated.

There would be no regulatory framework for sex selection. There would be no regulatory framework for deciding on the abortion of a living soul that would have a disability—none whatever. Those matters need to be properly regulated for.

Hon. Members have made the point that it is unlawful in Northern Ireland to do certain things that are legal here. I must say, Dame Rosie, we have got to nail that. If it is a criminal offence to facilitate and to encourage an abortion illegally—outside of the law—in Northern Ireland, that same law applies in the rest of GB. One cannot facilitate or encourage illegal abortion anywhere in the UK, whether one is in Walthamstow or in any other part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It should not be put about that there are different liberties on this issue; there are not. There are regulations that would apply in England, but none of them would apply in Northern Ireland under this measure. Even if Members take a different view from me on the principle point, they should think long and hard before they support this, because of the impact that it would have.

Let me read into the record of the House what the Supreme Court judgment in R (A and B) v. Secretary of State for Health said, as recently as 2017. It was confirmed that there is no right to abortion in any international treaties:

“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path. But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight”,

yet we are being told today that no, that is not the case. That is the law; that is what the international treaties say. How can Members tell us that they are campaigning on a great rights issue? There is no right under the international treaties to terminate an unborn life. That is the fact of the matter, and we must make sure that that right—the right to life—is upheld.

Other Members have indicated that they wish to speak for the rights of women. The biggest survey done on this matter in the past year, under ComRes, has shown that 66% of women in Northern Ireland, if they want to see changes to abortion laws, want those changes to be done exclusively in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will take cognisance of the specific and peculiar needs that the Province has. That is what the surveys show. They do not indicate that they want this House to legislate for it in a day, or in a hop, skip, jump and a prayer manner that would lead to unregulated abortions.

It is important that we address one matter that was brought before the House last night. The Scottish National party made a principled case here to support what it has always done—their words, “a principled case”. It said that it would ensure that it would stand away from interfering in a devolved matter. It is important that we look at what was said on the record, at column 75. The SNP said that it does not vote on matters of devolution and that it sticks to that principle. If that was the principle, it is very disappointing that, today, tactically, the SNP has decided to change it. It is entitled, of course, to make that change, but it is not right to try to suggest that it is all the DUP’s fault, when we know that the leaks, which are worse than those coming out of Washington, indicate splits in the ranks of the SNP and that it has more problems internally on this matter and it is trying to use the cover of this matter to take away from its own splits.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I have been an MP for 27 years and I was here for all the devolution legislation. I sat on the Opposition Benches and I was opposed to devolution, but I lost. I lost the referendum and I lost the argument. Therefore, I cannot see how anybody who believes in devolution, simply because they do not like the decisions that the devolved Administrations are taking, could be against it.

JTI Gallaher

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point which I want to address slightly later by talking about how Europe has played a devastating role in this development.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government caving in on this one, and indeed leading the charge on plain packaging, interferes with the intellectual property of companies, which is a dangerous precedent, and that we will end up not with more people giving up smoking, but with the exporting of jobs and the importing of tobacco products?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that plain packaging will not do what it sets out to achieve. It will not reduce consumption; it will simply help to destroy an industry.

I appeal to the Government tonight. They could help me to save jobs in my constituency and help me save this industry by indicating firmly that they will review immediately their decision to implement plain packaging, allowing me to go back to the company and argue that it is worth its while staying in a country that wants to encourage, not discourage, manufacturing.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Philip Hollobone)]

The hon. Lady has been very patient, and now her moment has arrived.

[Ms Ritchie]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I wish to speak to amendments 7 and 8 and amendment 6.

Given that we are living in a more normal society in Northern Ireland—although the degree of that normality varies, and we have seen it ebb and flow over the last few months—I believe that the anonymity relating to donations could now be lifted, not necessarily next October but perhaps at an earlier date, as suggested by the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills).

I cannot disagree with what I understand to be the intended purpose of the amendments. It is important that, in trying to achieve a greater level of political maturity and in the practice of politics generally, we strive to achieve the highest standards of public life, whether we are serving our constituents or executing our parliamentary duties here at Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The public ask us to serve them, and the duty to serve them is in our contract with them when we are elected as members of political parties. The electorate rightly demand from us the highest standards in public office in the execution of that contract, and it is important for the guiding principles of transparency, openness and accountability to constitute not just the pillars on which our fledgling democracy is built, but the rules that govern donations to political parties serving us in public life and wider civic society.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I acknowledge that there may be concern about security issues—concern that was expressed by the leader of our party when he gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. There is a need to protect donors, because some of them—and some parties —fear that they may might be at risk from a terrorist or other threat. However, if we have learned anything over the last few months—and over the last few days, when television programmes have contained revelations about alleged political interference in certain bodies—it is the importance of giving some form of resilience and confidence to the public.

In that respect, I do not have any problem in supporting the amendments of the hon. Member for Belfast East, although it will not come as a surprise to learn that I do not support the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) because like my party colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I believe we live in the island of Ireland. I believe that fervently as a democratic Irish nationalist, but notwithstanding that, I represent a border constituency, and many people at the southern end of it daily travel to places of employment in County Louth. They pay taxes sometimes in both the north of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. They also have their children educated in the north, and they buy goods and services in the south and the north. There is that exchange of ideas and people. They view people in County Louth, albeit it is in the south of Ireland—in the Republic of Ireland, a different jurisdiction—as their neighbours and friends. In those circumstances, with that exchange of people and ideas, I cannot support this amendment. I am sure DUP Members will perfectly understand where the parliamentary party of the SDLP is coming from in that respect.

I also believe that we need to see progress on a whole range of matters, however. Mr Haass has been appointed today to chair the all-party talks on flags and emblems and reconciliation. It is important that we move towards that in the next phase of devolution so we can see the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, including support from the British Government for a Bill of Rights that is dedicated to the needs and requirements of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 5.15 pm, and 11 Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate. Lengthy contributions will not be met with universal joy by others who wish to contribute, so I ask Members please to be mindful of others when making their own speeches.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 183, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]