Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to make what I hope is, in comparison, a relatively brief speech, but I have some questions about how this Bill will work. I hope that will meet your requirements, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I think it is important that we ask these questions and that we centre in this debate the people of Northern Ireland. We have already talked a lot about the institutions, the challenges with the protocol and, indeed, Brexit, as well as about who needs to be flexible—this Government, the European Union—but I think it is absolutely key to talk about the public in Northern Ireland and how they are affected by this legislation. I say that as somebody who has now lobbied five separate Secretaries of State about Executive formation legislation.

Members who were here before 2019 will remember the last incarnation of this legislation, which led to the situation in which we finally had legal abortion in Northern Ireland. It is with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and how this Bill will affect that in mind that I want to ask these questions. As I said earlier, it has now been 1,134 days since we passed that legislation, and this House took a decision that we wanted to support access at local level that is safe and legal for women in Northern Ireland. We agreed subsequently, in the abortion regulations in 2020—it is 973 days since they were passed—that there should be a service on request up to 12 weeks and that beyond that, up to 24 weeks, two medical professionals could certify that a woman should have an abortion if there was a greater risk of mental harm or physical harm if she did not, which is very similar to England and Wales.

I raised that because one thing to remember in all of these debates is that decriminalisation and legalisation do not mean deregulation. Indeed, the legislation that we have seen flowing from the 2019 Act absolutely sets out how access to abortion should be provided. The challenge for many of us, though, is that during all that time, that has not happened. Time and again, we have seen the 2 million women in Northern Ireland denied that right. Abortion might be legal, but it is not accessible. Indeed, in July this year we heard that a woman in Belfast who had suffered from pre-term premature rupture of membranes was told that she had to travel to Liverpool. We have seen many more not able to access pills.

The reason we have been given for that through the last three years is basically a stand-off between the Northern Ireland Health Department and the UK Government, with the Government upholding the human rights of women in Northern Ireland set out in the 2019 Act. In the last three years, women in Northern Ireland have directly suffered because the previous incarnation of the Bill had not been delivered. All of us in the House recognise that it is one thing to win an argument—it might be another thing to win an amendment—but delivery and implementation are where change happens.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The hon. Member has won the argument, and I can tell her that we are making enormous progress towards delivering abortion. The Government can confirm that services will be commissioned in Northern Ireland before the Bill passes through the other place.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for that confirmation. I hope he will join me in paying tribute to all those women in Northern Ireland who have continued to work on the issue, championing their sisters and neighbours—those who need these services—through the political dysfunction and patriarchal discrimination that has led to a situation where we might have decided that something was legal through a previous incarnation of the Bill, but it was not accessible.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think she will recognise the spirit and inspiration of what I am saying, as people did on Tuesday, but I do not wish to be drawn excessively into theology about the timing of one’s repentance, and I will move on.

Many Members of this House—I can see some of them on the Opposition Benches—choose to live their lives under certain commands: to love even their enemies, to bless those who curse them and, yes, to forgive as they are forgiven, sometimes for grave matters. So when I sat here and listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say the words he said in the House of Commons—which I will not put back on the record, because people know what he said—and when I read them again in Hansard, I think that is an apology worthy of consideration of forgiveness for what went on, because this has moved beyond law. As far as I know, no one else in this country is being investigated by the police for retrospective offences—it is gone, it is behind them, it is past—but those in No. 10 Downing Street are being held to a higher standard in ways that other members of the public are not. [Interruption.] I can hear Members barracking, but that is right.

When we imposed these not merely draconian but barbaric rules on other people, everybody in the centre of power should have understood that they had to obey not merely the letter but the spirit of those rules. There should have been no cake in No. 10 and no booze in No. 10; these things should not have happened. I do not defend or condone in any way what happened.

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

I am mesmerised by the hon. Gentleman’s psychic powers if he does not understand that all offences are retrospective—unless he knows someone who is going to commit an offence. To err is human and to forgive divine, but to transgress repeatedly, as the report already shows us, is something else. Is it not important that we have this inquiry now to understand whether that has happened and there has been a repeated offence against the House? In the past year, half of the public have lost what little trust they had in politicians. The longer this goes on and the more repetition there is, the more all of us are besmirched. Is it not right, in the spirit of forgiveness and redemption, that we are all given the opportunity for salvation?

[Mr Baker]

Not for the first time, the hon. Lady tempts me to give her references. On the point about repeated offences and forgiveness, I would encourage her to look at Romans 7. She invites me to clarify what I said. Of course all offences are retrospective. My point is that the police are treating Downing Street staff especially harshly in a way that the rest of the public are not being treated. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) wants to say that is not true, I will take his intervention.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes his case with particular force. I am sorry to have to tell him that I am not in a position to accept his new clause on that basis. I ask him to work with members of the Government on the immigration Bill that will contain the measures that he and the rest of us wish to see to ensure that we meet our humanitarian obligations.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will give way to the hon. Lady once.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister’s colleagues gave a statement on 1 November 2016 that made the commitment to take children from Europe, and it is those children whose rights under the Dublin regulation would be taken away. Can he understand the concern about the fact that he has just announced that the requirement to work with 31 other countries would supersede that? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the commitment made in that statement on 1 November 2016 to take children from Europe and to do our fair share for refugee children will be honoured in full?

[Mr Baker]

These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Bills for which her Department is responsible. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me and understand that it is with the Home Office that these matters need to be taken forward. This Bill is about how we leave the European Union with certainty, continuity and control in our statute book.

Amendments 15 and 16 are on the power to deal with deficiency—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Thank you, Mr Hanson.

The power is available only if the public authority is taking on a new function under this Bill, and the fees and charges must be in connection with that function. The amendment would force Ministers to exercise this power on behalf of public authorities, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which this House has made statutorily independent from Ministers. The Government believe that it is right that where Parliament has already granted the power to set up rules within these independent regulators, fees and charges of the type envisaged by this power should continue to be exercised by those public authorities. For good reasons, they have been made independent of Government, and Parliament should have the option to maintain that status quo. I stress that the terms on which any public authority would be able to raise fees and other charges will be set in the statutory instrument that delegates the power to them; and that, as I said, any such delegation would trigger the affirmative procedure, ensuring that this House considers and approves any delegation of the power and how it would be exercised.

Amendment 340 on cost recovery has the disadvantage that it would prohibit what I hope Labour Members would consider to be progressive principles of ensuring a spreading of the burden of regulation. It also might not allow regulators to cover the cost of enforcement.

Clause 12 and schedule 4 are about delivering a successful EU exit with certainty, continuity and control. Clause 12 is not about enabling the payment of any negotiated financial settlement, and neither is schedule 4 about subverting the normal process of raising taxation. The amendments muddy the waters of what these provisions are for. These provisions are simply about ensuring that the financial aspects of taking back control and preparing to take a fully independent position on the world stage are put on a sound and proper footing.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister said that he thought that all the amendments muddied the water, but he has also said that it was right that Parliament should have a vote on the money—on the divorce bill—and that there should be parliamentary oversight of any additional controls. Why then is he not going to accept amendments that simply ensure that that is the case? Just what kind of control is he seeking to take back?

[Mr Baker]

As the hon. Lady would expect me to say, what I want is Parliament to have proper control over our laws, our money, our borders and our trade policy. Having expressed my gratitude for her intervention, I hope that I have tackled right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns, and I urge them not to press the amendments.

Kashmir

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why I begin with the point about intractability. The other reason it is not good enough to adopt the current position is that this is a legacy of the British empire and we should acknowledge our historical responsibility. There is a conversation to be had about world views and the willingness of individuals to accept ancestral responsibility, but that is perhaps for another day. Just because it is difficult to make a stand on this issue does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. It is right for the British Government to make a stand on this question.

Secondly, I have some questions about lessons that we might learn from our own referendum. Those of us who are asking for a referendum for the fulfilment of United Nations mandates have to ask ourselves, what if we win, what if we make progress and what if a referendum were held? I want to make two points in particular. The first question is about the collective basis on which a referendum could be held. What would be the demos? Who would vote and on what basis would the result be enforced? We know that in the UK there are those who do not wish to accept the national referendum result; we know, for example, that the Scottish National party picks up on the point about how Scotland voted. These will all be live issues in the event that a referendum is held in Kashmir.

I appeal to all Kashmiris who work on these issues to give serious thought to what the demos would be and on what basis the result would be considered legitimate by all parties, because the other issue—which is of foremost seriousness—is that we saw passions run extremely high in the United Kingdom, where politics generally proceeds no further than harsh language. Given that we are dealing with a region of the world where live conflict among major nuclear-armed powers is a risk, we must ask ourselves how a referendum in Kashmir would proceed peacefully not just during the campaign but afterwards.

Finally on this point let me say something about unity and division. I know that in Wycombe there are British Kashmiris who voted remain, and perhaps many who did not vote at all, who supported the fundamental principle that we should have had a referendum. I am pleased and proud to stand with them, united that as we go forward we should have a referendum for Kashmir.

The third point is perhaps the most contentious: how should we make progress? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) described as untrue some of the things that the House has already heard in the course of the debate, and this is a very important point. At different times, we have heard Pakistan accused of state-sponsored terrorism, and India accused of using inappropriate weapons, of gang rape and of murder. I do not wish to see either nation slandered and, of course, the crucial difference between a valid charge and a slander is truth. When it comes to making progress, I appeal to everyone to focus relentlessly on objective fact, and to the Government to facilitate that.

I know what I have seen with my own eyes in the videos that have been shown to me. I have seen what is purported to be Indian soldiers beating a confession from a man and what is purported to be Indian soldiers killing a man in the rubble of his own home in Kashmir. They are images that I would prefer never to have seen and that I would never wish to see again, but the crucial question is whether they are a set-up, or propaganda, or whether they are true.

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

rose—

[Mr Baker]

Will the hon. Lady bear with me a moment?

If the videos are true, Kashmir is a matter for the whole world. The most commented on videos on my YouTube channel are from the beginning and end of the 2011 debate on this subject. The overwhelming consensus is that we should stay out of Indian affairs, but if these allegations are true the whole world cannot stay out of Kashmir and of India and Pakistan’s affairs.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will not give way, because I am being encouraged to wrap up.

I understand that the Foreign Office thinks that this issue is intractable, but we have seen in our own country that it need not be. Yes, there are lessons to be learned and the Government can facilitate them, but for goodness’ sake let us recognise that if even a fraction of the allegations being made are true this is an urgent and pressing issue for the whole world.

Finance Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Stella Creasy

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

This problem of taxation on tampons and other sanitary products is one that, quite rightly, excites a great degree of anger and controversy, but the solution to the problem is uncontroversial. It is perfectly obvious that we are all agreed in the House that we should get rid of the tax on tampons and other sanitary products. The reason why this is a subject of interest to so many is that the House is of course prohibited from doing so by EU law.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why he thinks that purchase tax, which was also applied to tampons before our entry into the European Community, was not similarly egregious to women?

[Mr Baker]

Of course that tax was similarly egregious to women. I am happy to say that I was born in 1971, so I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for not taking responsibility for decisions made at that time.