Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Lady Hermon

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

Yet again I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, because that Vienna convention must mean something. The fact that we have signed those treaties gives rights to all our citizens—not rights to some of them when we need to do a deal with some other citizens to stay in power, but rights that should transcend party politics, rights that should mean something, rights that we should all be proud to uphold. Because we do not do so, our fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland are treated as second-class citizens. Women are not allowed to access basic rights of control over their own bodies, and people are not allowed to love who they love and see that celebrated without fear or favour and equally.

It is because the Secretary of State has done nothing about those issues, and tries to deny her fundamental responsibility for upholding those rights on behalf of all UK citizens, especially in Northern Ireland, that we are in this position today, and that is where amendment 2 has come from. It is about the mess that has been created—about the fact that UK taxpayers’ money is being used to perpetuate those human rights abuses by funding prosecutions and defending claims that are having to be brought by Northern Irish citizens to uphold their rights—because this Government will not act. This is a very live issue.

[Lady Hermon]

May I ask the hon. Lady to take a few moments and reflect on the very significant Supreme Court decision in June 2018, in a case brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and the very critical comments that the judges made about the lack of appropriate legislation in Northern Ireland? I think I am right in saying that the situation in relation to the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland in the cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality was described as “deeply unsatisfactory”. When Supreme Court judges describe such things as “deeply unsatisfactory”, this country will have to legislate at some stage to comply with that.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Lady. I am only disappointed because I was sort of hoping for a proposal; but I completely agree with the point that she makes. Indeed, she prefigures something that I shall come on to. We are spending money because of our failure to tackle those human rights issues—money that could be going into public services in Northern Ireland, but instead will be spent upholding the situation that she describes. I want to come on to that, and what that practically means for the Secretary of State.

We know that cases are currently going through the courts as a direct result of this situation. In 2013, the mother of a 15-year-old was prosecuted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for procuring abortion pills for her under-age daughter. The mother was prosecuted following the appointment with her daughter and a GP. That decision is now being judicially reviewed, so there is a live case, which the UK Government will spend money to defend as a result of the provisions of the Bill before us.

Today, we know that the UK Government have been formally notified that A and B, a mother and daughter from Northern Ireland, are taking their battle to the European Court of Human Rights. They are challenging the refusal to allow women from Northern Ireland access to abortion services free of charge in England and have issued legal proceedings against the English Health Secretary. Six years ago, they were forced to raise £900 to travel from Northern Ireland to Manchester in order for B to be treated at a private clinic. I absolutely share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) about the importance of value for money within our politics. On the public purse, the crucial thing in this case is that an offer was made to settle with the Government. There was an offer not to proceed with this kind of spending, but the Government have refused. They have ignored the requests to settle this case, even though the law has subsequently changed. That means that public money that could be going on public services in Northern Ireland will be spent contesting that case.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Lady Hermon

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I know that the hon. Lady also feels strongly about this issue. If I may, however, I shall now deal with—in particular—the human rights obligations that I believe we have in this place as a direct result of the Good Friday agreement.

There is a theoretical argument about what those pieces of legislation mean, and there is the human impact of what they mean for people in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will shortly, but I feel that the Committee wants to hear the figures that I am about to give.

A year and a half ago, the House voted to allow women from Northern Ireland to come to England and Wales and have abortions on the NHS. We now know that 28 women a week travel to this country for that very purpose. We also know that our own Supreme Court says that it is a cruel and degrading treatment of our own citizens to require them to travel. Many cannot travel. Many find that journey lonely, frightening and difficult, at the very time when they are at their most vulnerable. We also know that a year ago, 84 couples in Northern Ireland had to have civil partnerships because they could not have the basic equality of recognition before the law of their relationship as a marriage. That is the very human impact of those ancient pieces of legislation that we crafted in this place.

I will now happily give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because I want to hear from her.

[Lady Hermon]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be well aware of the Supreme Court ruling in, I think, June this year which established—the majority of the judges made it quite clear—that the existing abortion legislation in Northern Ireland was “deeply unsatisfactory” in relation to fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime. The law in Northern Ireland will have to change. That was a ruling in the Supreme Court, our highest court in the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady made clear at the beginning of her speech that her new clause would not change the law in Northern Ireland, so if it is passed this evening, or even put to a vote, what exactly will be the consequence?

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point. That court judgment in June 2018 held us all to account for what we were doing about human rights. It was simply because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was not a direct victim of that policy that the policy could not be enacted. We learnt today that Sarah Ewart, an incredibly brave woman, is continuing the court process, because there is no other form of redress and remedy at present.

As the Government have previously said, these are matters on which the Assembly, were it to be functioning, should be able to act; but, as we said at the start, the Bill constitutes a recognition that the Assembly is not functioning, and is unlikely to be functioning soon. What, then—this is the human question—do women like Sarah Ewart do? What, then, do people who love each other do when their politicians fail them? What do the public do? The new clause asks that question in a way that none of us can ignore. It asks the Secretary of State to take on the responsibility of reporting on what she will do.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Debate between Stella Creasy and Lady Hermon

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

As ever, I agree completely with my Welsh comrade.

This outdated legislation is not just having an impact in Northern Ireland, and that is why this is a matter for the whole House. Women across England and Wales are also buying pills online rather than seeking repeated visits to doctors. One study showed that in a four-month period last year, 500 British women attempted to access abortion pills from one online supplier alone and so would be liable to prosecution under this archaic rule. This situation is not simply about Northern Ireland. It is about legislation that this House has passed, and that is why this House must act.

I want to be very specific today about what I am proposing, because I understand that there are concerns.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Lady for giving way. This is of course a very, very sensitive and controversial issue, particularly in Northern Ireland. I need to reflect to her the fact that I have received a large number of emails from constituents who feel that MPs at Westminster are usurping the powers and responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Assembly during a period when we have not had a functioning Assembly—I wish we did have one, and I look to my colleagues on the Democratic Unionist party Benches and urge them to get the Assembly up and running again. How can the hon. Lady reassure my constituents that today’s very important debate does not undermine the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland?

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and absolutely wish to take up the challenge that she presents, because I completely respect the point of view that she puts forward. Let me therefore make some progress and set out precisely what we are proposing.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 puts abortion in the same category as homicide, destroying or damaging a building with the use of gunpowder with the intent to murder, child stealing, rape, and defilement of women. Abortion might be the most common procedure that our constituents who are women of reproductive age undergo, but even today, in 2018, we do not let them make the choice themselves to have that procedure.

We would like to repeal sections 58 and 59 of OAPA. Letting sections 58 and 59 stay on the statute book does not address many of the challenges that we see today in abortion provision. For example, extending the Abortion Act 1967 does not address the impact of the pills I mentioned, or indeed the paternalism that says women are not to be trusted to make choices about their bodies.

I also want to be clear about what we are not doing in repealing those sections of OAPA. This is not an attempt to remove the criminal charges that come after 24 weeks —let me make that explicitly clear, because I have seen briefings from some anti-choice organisations that suggest otherwise. We are not intending to amend or repeal the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which covers and still has the power to criminalise abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy. Decriminalising abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy would mean that the Abortion Act 1967 became redundant before 24 weeks of pregnancy. As abortion before 24 weeks of pregnancy would no longer be a crime, we would no longer need the 1967 Act to act as a defence for women who had sought such an abortion. However, the exemptions that the 1967 Act provides for termination post 24 weeks would remain, and the 1967 Act would provide exemptions to prosecution under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act—for example, in cases of severe foetal abnormality or where the mother’s life is at risk. That might seem complicated, so let me put it as simply as possible: the time limit would not change, nor would the important role of medics in this matter.

I respect and recognise that some people do not consider abortion a human right and so think a criminal approach is the right response. I recognise that for many more, it is not that that worries them, but the constitutional issues at stake. Even though the Good Friday agreement explicitly retained human rights responsibilities for this place, let me reassure those MPs who want to uphold the role of devolved Assemblies that repealing OAPA would not write a particular abortion law for anyone, but would require them to act. This proposal would respect devolution; it would not reject it.