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

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[Mr Walker]

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

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

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Further to his correct response to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in relation to legal advice, does the Minister recognise that the courts in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the UK Supreme Court have already ruled that the outgoing abortion regime in Northern Ireland is incompatible with human rights? In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of Sarah Ewart in championing the need for reform.

[Mr Walker]

Absolutely, and I recognise that the decisions that this House took to give the Government the locus to act on these issues were partly in the light of those judgments, both in the Belfast High Court and in the Supreme Court. The hon. Gentleman is right to address those issues. I must say, having met with Sarah Ewart and her mother, that I was hugely impressed by the courage that she has displayed in bringing her issues to light and publicly engaging in this, coming from a background that was not necessarily one that people would expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I rise to speak in favour of the regulations and to give an authentic Northern Ireland voice in support of the actions that Parliament has taken. In doing so, I thank all hon. Members who followed the leadership of the hon. Member for Walthamstow in passing the relevant clauses to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 in July last year, and I thank the Northern Ireland Office for its work in taking forward the regulations over the past year. Today they are part of the law, subject to the further confirmation of Parliament.

I recognise that there are many progressive voices in Northern Ireland who welcome the changes. I pay tribute not just to Sarah Ewart, whom I mentioned previously, but to many other campaigners who have been pushing for reform over the intervening decades, including through organisations such as Amnesty International and Alliance for Choice.

I am a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it has always been a source of great frustration that the Assembly has been incapable of passing even the most modest reform to Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. People may reflect on the past with some degree of regret that opportunities were not taken and that there was a resulting need for Parliament to intervene. I was a member of the Assembly when the Act of Parliament was passed, and in no way, shape or form did I feel imposed on or overruled, or feel that my mandate had been unrecognised. Rather, I was pleased that someone was taking action to address the situation in my part of the United Kingdom, and that the rights of women were to be upheld properly. Parliament is for the UK as a whole, and there are responsibilities on the UK Government to ensure that all parts of the country follow and are in compliance with international human rights standards, including article 8 of the European convention on human rights, CEDAW and the recommendations of the committee more recently.

Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Assembly voted the way it did last week, and I will make some references to that. First, it is important to bear it in mind that this is an issue of rights, and rights are not addressed through majoritarian processes. There are duties on legislators to follow the rule of law and human rights standards, and to ensure that things are in place in that regard. Public opinion in Northern Ireland has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly among young people, and opinion polls have shown that there is majority support for a range of reforms to be taken forward in Northern Ireland, so I do not recognise that Parliament is acting contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. In any event, it still has an overarching duty to ensure that the law is human rights-compliant.

If we are to be truthful about the situation in Northern Ireland, it was not the case that abortions were not taking place. Our abortion issue was being exported to other parts of the UK, creating a situation of huge trauma for the women involved, and also creating difficulties for people in more challenging socioeconomic situations and for women in situations of domestic violence and coercive control, who were not able to avail themselves of their rights in the same way that women in other parts of the UK were. I therefore welcome the actions that are to be taken forward.

It is important to recognise that the context of Northern Ireland will still be very difficult. We still have a considerable degree of controversy that Members will no doubt express today. Sadly, we will hear more about it in due course. There is a risk that some of the controversies around the guidance will create a chill factor and make it difficult for healthcare professionals to fulfil their responsibilities. Indeed, we could see a situation in which women are denied their lawful rights in terms of reproductive healthcare, so it is important that we provide a stability of certainty for professionals.

I also recognise that the regulations re-introduce a risk of criminal sanctions against healthcare workers. The hon. Member for Bristol South has already alluded to that. Given the ongoing stigma in that regard, I encourage the Minister to do what he can to give further reassurance that the reinstatement of criminal sanctions cannot be used to prosecute healthcare workers who act in accordance with criminal guidance and who also act in good faith.

I want to put on the record concerns around exclusion zones. I appreciate that the Minister has made it clear that that will be under continued review. Indeed, a wider debate is happening across the UK, but it is important to put it in context. Given the degree of stigma and controversy in Northern Ireland and that there have been considerable problems historically, and indeed today, around the harassment of women who try to access their healthcare rights, it is important that a reconsideration is given due attention as quickly as possible.

There are two important challenges. Before we come to that, it is important that we try to put the issue to bed. Parliament has acted and the clauses in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 have been repealed. There is a duty in primary legislation to have regulations. Where those regulations are voted down, that duty still continues and further regulations need to be put in place and need to be CEDAW-compliant. That duty is there and continues to exist. It is important that we try to recognise that this debate is now settled, and the same applies to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has the ability to pass its own measures, but again, it is important that those are CEDAW-compliant. That must be our benchmark.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Gentleman and I will differ on this issue. For the benefit of his constituents, will he make it clear whether he supports abortion for Down’s syndrome up to birth—yes or no?

[Stephen Farry]

I support CEDAW-compliant regulations. It is important that we do not place this in a pejorative way around certain circumstances. Every situation and crisis pregnancy that a woman experiences is a very personal circumstance. The decisions and choices that that woman has to make are often very difficult. We have to give respect and support in that regard.

In that context, I shall make my two final points. The first is that there is a need for the Northern Ireland Office to continue to have a dialogue with the Department of Health and the wider Northern Ireland Executive about ensuring that there is the full provision of services in Northern Ireland. So far, we have seen piecemeal provision; that needs to go further. I regret to report that the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, rather than treating this as an operational healthcare matter, has referred it back to the Northern Ireland Executive, which is a political cauldron. That will create difficulties in terms of getting decisions to proceed with the full commissioning of services. It is important that the Northern Ireland Office remains fully abreast of that situation and continues to follow up on the encouragement that it has given to date to ensure that those measures are put in place.

It is also important to ensure that there is a proper roll-out of information and guidance, including on websites, for the public to understand what the service situation is, but also to ensure that that is passed down throughout healthcare staff, because there is ongoing confusion. In that context, we could see a situation in which there are rights on paper but not in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

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

[Stephen Farry]

rose—

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Stephen Farry]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I very much appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee on a matter that I have a great interest in. Abortion is a devolved matter and it should be a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred to the fact that 100,000 people in Northern Ireland today are alive because of our legislation. That was disputed by some, but the fact is that after an investigation it was clear that that figure was reasonable. It has been important for people in the rest of the UK, but it is very important for us in Northern Ireland. Some of the people we meet are alive today because of our legislation.

In 2016, the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly voted on primary legislation not to change our abortion law. The process begun in July last year is ongoing. We are all very fond of the Minister, but on this issue we really are at different ends of the spectrum. This impacts our law and constitution and poses deep questions.

The first convention that was flouted was through the application of the accelerated procedure. The fast-tracking of Northern Ireland legislation reduces further the scrutiny that these measures should receive. We reiterate our concern about the routine nature of fast-tracking legislation relating to Northern Ireland.

The second convention that was flouted was that, despite the Clerks’ advice to MPs, the amendment that became section 19 was clearly out of the scope of the Bill. The whole point of constitutional democracy is that it is not crudely majoritarian, especially if the policy affects different national units of different sizes, but it is subject to constitutional rules, devised for the good of the polity as a whole. Constitutional rules, however, have been ignored.

The third constitutional convention that was violated was the convention that Westminster should not vote on a devolved matter: 100% of MPs who took their seats in Northern Ireland were present, and 100% of those who were present voted against a change in the law. The constitutional outrage was and is on a par with two very dark moments in the recent history of the Union, which are now regarded as huge mistakes, and which have both been the subject of public apologies.

Others Members have referred to how much the Union means to them—how much it means to you, Sir David, and how much it means to us as Members. In the 1950s, it was decided that Liverpool needed access to another reservoir. It was decided that the best way of doing would be to flood and thereby destroy a village in Wales called Tryweryn. The people of Wales were rightly outraged that a Government should deem it appropriate to remove an entire village, with its history and its culture: 35 out of the 36 Welsh MPs voted against, yet the legislation was passed in this House, disregarding the opinion of the MPs in Wales.

The people in Scotland were rightly outraged in the late 1980s when the Government proposed to make Scotland the guinea pig and introduced the poll tax one year early. In the vote, the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs voted against the legislation; yet it was passed, courtesy of the votes of MPs with no mandate in Scotland to make decisions. In 2005, the city of Liverpool finally issued an apology to the people of Wales. David Cameron also issued a public apology to the people of Scotland for this particular abuse.

I will quote a couple of people, although I am very conscious of time. Professor Hill said:

“The text of international treaties such as CEDAW are carefully crafted expressions of intent and belief. There is no reference to abortion in the text of CEDAW. There is nothing in the text of CEDAW which requires a state party to allow abortion on specified grounds and/or decriminalise abortion generally. The absence of such a provision in the formal text gives a clear indication that no such obligation exists”.

It is not just the view of one lawyer. It is also the view of Supreme Court in 2017. 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. It is hard to find words to express how deeply distressing for the people of Northern Ireland it is to be disenfranchised, like they were in Wales in 1950 and like they were in Scotland in 1980.

What they were doing has been described as a travesty of constitutional due process. The terms of the law were completely rewritten from the text debated on one occasion by the House of Commons, and were then subject to a time-limited debate of one hour, which covered all Lords amendments and was dominated by Brexit. If we add up the fragments mentioning abortion and the amendment, it took up 17 minutes of debate. Again, that underlines our concerns.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:

“Public consultation began on 4 November 2019 and lasted for a period of six weeks. In our view this is too short for so sensitive a topic. Added to which, it took place during the General Election period and in the run up to Christmas, neither of which conforms with best practice. Of the over 21,000 responses received, 79% registered general opposition to any change to the established position in Northern Ireland.”

I am not going quote, because of the time, Sir David, but David Scoffield QC has been on the record and answered on many occasions, and we cannot ignore his opinion:

“The NIO states that, where possible, this statutory framework mirrors the Abortion Act 1967 so that provision will be broadly consistent with the abortion services in the rest of the UK. The NIO was, however, obliged by law to implement the specific recommendations of the CEDAW Report which relate to Northern Ireland. This report has sought to expand on some of the Government’s policy choices and also to air the main issues drawn to our attention in submissions, to assist the House in the forthcoming debate.”

I would have to say that the Northern Ireland regulations need to be referred to the Attorney General. We have ignored the John Larkin recommendations to the Committee. He said that the regulations in section 9(11) do not go as far as being able to the Act, which is a reform in the recommendations.

[Stephen Farry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am conscious of the time, and the hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I also want to give the Minister a chance to respond.

Liz Crowter says:

“At 24 weeks babies are viable. You cannot have a law that says it is OK to end the lives of some viable human beings because they have Down Syndrome, while saying that other viable human beings of the same age cannot be because they don’t have a disability, without saying human beings with non-fatal disabilities are worthy of less protection and are therefore less valuable.”

It is not just Heidi Crowter. Máire Lea-Wilson’s one-year-old son Aidan has Down’s syndrome. Papers were lodged with the High Court just last week. Mindful of such things, Parliament must vote to reject the regulations and ask the Government to think again. We have a functioning Assembly that can make its own abortion law, as has happened since the 1861 Act. Yet the Government are proposing that, before 19 June, Parliament vote on a devolved matter by passing the regulations. Others have referred to the 75 MLAs who oppose abortion on the basis of non-fatal disability. My point is that there is a stronger legal argument for us to leave the matter to the Assembly.

I would like to ask the Minister some other questions, but I do not have time. I will finish with one more point. The Government have cast constitutional due process to one side, through pressing for out-of-scope amendments in the context of accelerated procedure; failing to point out that there was no international legal imperative for changing the law, especially if doing so involved violating a key constitutional convention; the effective disenfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland on a Northern Ireland piece of legislation on a devolved matter; peers having only a few hours’ sight of the amendment that became law before the debate; permitting only 17 fragmented minutes of debate on a completely new text that proposed making hugely controversial changes through secondary rather than primary legislation; giving only six weeks for the consultation; knowing that 79% of people said, “Please don’t do this”; the failure to welcome the restoration of the Assembly as giving Parliament the opportunity to repeal section 9; the production of regulations that undermined devolution significantly more than Parliament required after the restoration of the Assembly; the production of regulations in respecr of which the Attorney General has pointed out that the Secretary of State repeatedly exceeded his power; and responding to the cross-community vote of the Assembly by rejecting the regulations with absolute authority.

The British constitutional position is predicated on the assumption that no Parliament can bind its successors. The 2017-19 Parliament, happily, is no exception. The Government now have the chance to extricate themselves from a catalogue of abuses and save themselves from the huge embarrassment of asking Members to vote for disability discrimination in violation of the requirement in paragraph 85 of the Committee report on the regulations.