Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 March 2013

732 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we move to today's business, I want to return to issues that arose during last Monday's debate on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I have to say that I was very disappointed to read in Hansard the comments of some Members, which fell well short of the standards of good temper and moderation that I expect in the Chamber. Debate can be robust, but it is not acceptable for the tone or nature of remarks in any debate to come closer to discourtesy or disorder.

The Deputy Speaker dealt with many of the issues last week and made clear that Members should be careful about the tone and nature of remarks that they make about other parties. However, he referred me to comments made from a sedentary position by Jim Allister, who is in the Chamber this morning, in which he made unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Sheehan. Let me say that they almost bordered on criminal allegations. Members will know that it would not be allowed in any other institution for a Member to make from a sedentary position or even when rising in their place such serious allegations against any Member of this House. All Members know that it is not in order to make unsubstantiated allegations against other Members in the Chamber. Such attacks on other Members fall well below the standards that I expect, and I will not hesitate to impose sanctions if Members refuse to fulfil these standards. I now invite Mr Allister to clarify or withdraw his remarks, and I say to the Member that he should do so simply and briefly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I interjected with this question:

"How much of the £26 million did you get?" — [Official Report, Vol 82, No 7, p49, col 2].

I was referring to the collective "you" of Sinn Féin. Given the inextricable link between Sinn Féin and the IRA, whose members robbed the Northern Bank, I was asking, "How much of the £26 million did Sinn Féin get?".

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I asked the Member to be brief.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thought I was being brief. I was asking, "How much of the £26 million did Sinn Féin get?", which was and is, I believe, a legitimate question. I am happy to clarify that that was what I was asking.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

So, is the Member clarifying by making it absolutely clear that he was not identifying Mr Sheehan? Is that what the Member is saying?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. When I said "you", I was referring to the collective "you" of Sinn Féin, asking how much of the £26 million Sinn Féin got.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member needs to be very careful in his words and what he is saying. To get clarity on the issue, is the Member generally referring to a political party rather than to an individual Member? Let us get this on the record and get it clarified.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

For the third time, Mr Speaker, I was asking, "How much of the £26 million stolen from the Northern Bank by the IRA did Sinn Féin get?".

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has certainly made it clear that he is not making an allegation against an individual Member; he is making a general allegation against a political party. That is a different issue. However, I have to say to the Member — the Deputy Speaker made it clear during the debate — that I have already underlined today that the nature and tone of remarks made against parties can also fall far short of standards that I expect in the Chamber.

I am speaking directly to the Member because the Member continually raises issues knowing fine well it can create many, many problems in the Chamber and certainly falls well short of the standards of debate in not only this Chamber but in any other elected institution. The Member has made his position clear, but the Member needs in future to be very careful of the language and how he conducts himself in debates in the Chamber.

Let me hope that I do not have to revisit this particular issue, especially from the Member's point of view, Mr Allister. Let us move on. I warn the Member: should it happen again, I will deal with the Member a lot more strongly, a lot more strongly. Let us move on from this debate and, as I say, I hope that I will not have to revisit this issue.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member was given an opportunity on three or four occasions to clarify. What, it appears to me, he did was actually make it worse and then multiply it by 29 because there are 29 Sinn Féin MLAs in the Chamber. I would ask that the Member withdraw the comments that he made in relation to each one of us.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As I said yesterday, these can be complex issues. These are not black-and-white issues. They can be complex. I have made my ruling. I am now going to move on, and I remind Members of what I said yesterday: the Speaker's ruling is final on all these issues. Let us move on.

Ministerial Statement

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in education format. The meeting was held in Armagh on 27 February 2013. I represented the Executive, as Minister of Education, along with the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland. Bhí an tAire Oideachais agus Scileanna, Ruairí Quinn TD, ionadaíoch ar Rialtas na hÉireann. The Irish Government was represented by Ruairí Quinn TD, Minister for Education and Skills.

Tá an ráiteas seo aontaithe le an Aire McCausland, agus tá sé á dhéanamh thar ceann na beirte againn. This statement has been agreed with Minister McCausland and is made on behalf of both of us. I will now summarise the main points from the meeting, ranging across all the agreed areas of education co-operation.

With regard to special educational needs, I remain committed to the expansion of services at the Middletown Centre for Autism, and I am pleased that progress remains on target to allow the centre to commence that expansion from April 2013. I am pleased to report that the necessary business case approval has been provided by my Department for the expansion over the period as planned. Subsequently, the minor refurbishment works and staff recruitment processes are under way. The expansion of services in the North will enable a larger number of children to receive direct support from the centre, and that will be invaluable to some of our most vulnerable children with complex autism.

Minister Quinn and I reported that both inspectorates are progressing work on a report focusing on best practice guidelines in literacy provision at post-primary level. It is anticipated that a similar report on numeracy will be ready for publication in late 2014. We welcomed the support given by the Education Departments in 2012 for the recommendations of the educational underachievement working group to all-island initiatives promoting literacy and numeracy and noted the group’s commendation of the Department of Education’s advertising campaign to promote the value of education; agreement to consider the potential for further joint departmental co-operation through the medium of web-based linkages; and agreement to explore the use of information by both Departments for policy formulation and targeted interventions, in order to develop best practice in addressing educational underachievement. It was also noted that current research on school attendance will provide the opportunity to share best practice on school attendance guidance and strategies in the North and South.

Many of the challenges facing policymakers in the education sector are common to both jurisdictions. Part 1 of the study of North/South co-operation in the education sector has been completed and approved by both Ministers. The Departments are ready to move to part 2. Part 2 of the study will be underpinned by enhanced and continuing structured high-level official engagement between both Departments. That will further enable new opportunities for the development of specific cross-border co-operation projects designed to produce practical, tangible outcomes. A further update will be given following the next NSMC meeting.

The Council noted the ongoing work to implement the recommendations contained in the joint evaluation report on the Dissolving Boundaries programme produced by the Education and Training Inspectorate and the Department of Education and Skills inspectorate. In particular, the Council noted the focus on ensuring greater self-evaluation of school projects.

The Council also welcomed the recent production of a DVD featuring teachers and pupils from North and South involved in the Dissolving Boundaries programme. Minister Quinn and I participated in the DVD, which aims to show how information and communication technology can assist in community cohesion. The DVD also featured a case study set in Israel in which teachers from different faith schools help young people to work together based on the Dissolving Boundaries programme.

Ministers agreed that the North/South Ministerial Council in education format should meet again on 23 October 2013.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

In rising to comment on the statement by the Minister, I think that there are a number of issues that the Committee will, undoubtedly, want to pursue further with regard to the detail. For example, reference is made in the statement to North/South co-operation in the education sector with regard to the production of best practice guidelines for literacy provision at post-primary level and the sharing of best practice on school attendance strategies. They are issues of concern and ultimate importance to our schools in Northern Ireland.

The statement is more about what is not in it than what is in it. I remind the Minister of what he said in answer to one of his colleagues in the House on 28 January 2013. In answer to a question regarding the North/South ministerial survey on cross-border education, he informed us that officials from the respective Departments were working towards a joint analysis of the data and a report was to be presented to the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education. Can the Minister confirm that that issue was raised? Can he confirm that the reason why it was not referred to in this briefing today is that little interest was shown in the issue? Can he clarify what really is going on with regard to the North/South ministerial survey on the issue?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. I welcome the participation of the Education Committee in the North/South Ministerial Council work, and I acknowledge the work being done by that body when any inquiry is being carried out. The Member will find that issues affecting education on this side of the border, the other side of the border or, indeed, our nearest islands are very similar. We have a lot to learn from each other if we want to achieve the goal of ensuring that all our young people have access to high-quality education. The problems that face communities and young people are very similar, whether they are in Belfast, Dublin, Liverpool or Cardiff. Let us learn from all of them. We should not be so narrow-minded that we would not learn from them.

With regard to the report on the North/South cross-border survey, I understand that concerns were expressed that the paperwork was delivered late and that parties wanted further time to study it. I have no difficulty with that. There is nothing to hide in any of the paperwork. If parties want a longer time to study that paperwork, so be it. I am hopeful that it will be presented to the next North/South ministerial meeting in education format in the near future.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I welcome the Minister's statement to the House, especially the progress update on the expansion of services at Middletown Centre for Autism. Can he detail how such an expansion of services will benefit parents and families, as well as children with autism, in the North?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That has been a piece of work that, I think, has delivered great benefit to communities on both sides of the border. The expansion of the Middletown Centre for Autism will see real, meaningful benefits for families of young people with autism. For instance, if we look at the work that will be produced on behalf of the North's Administration, we see that, over the next two years, upwards of 80 more children will benefit from the work of the centre than would have done previously. An additional 15 posts will be achieved in the centre. All those posts will focus on the needs and well-being of young people with autism. More research will be carried out into autism and the services required for young people with autism and their families. Therefore, it is a real piece of work that has flowed from the North/South Ministerial Council. It is physical in nature in the sense that the centre will be expanded physically, and, in terms of provision of services from the centre, additional services will be delivered to young people.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra ar na ceisteanna go dtí seo. Tugaim faoi deara nach bhfuil aon tagairt sa ráiteas don Ghaelscolaíocht. Ceapaim féin gur ábhar iontach oiriúnach í an Ghaelscolaíocht don chomhoibriú Thuaidh/Theas. Dá bhrí sin, ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire an bhfuil aon rud ar siúl ar thaobh comhoibrithe Thuaidh/Theas de ar an Ghaelscolaíocht.

I noticed that the statement made no reference to Irish-medium education. I would have thought that Irish-medium education is an excellent area of North/South co-operation. Why is it omitted from the statement? Is any worthwhile work taking place on that issue?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. There is ongoing, continuous work from the North/South Ministerial Council in relation to the Irish language and co-operation between my Department and Minister Quinn's Department on the provision of Irish-medium education. I have reported to the House previously. For instance, the Marino Institute of Education in Dublin and the University of Ulster have reached agreement on a proposal that will, from 2013-14, allow students to avail themselves of preparatory courses for the Irish language requirement — an Scrúdú le hAghaidh Cáilíochta sa Ghaeilge — delivered here in the North. The preparatory course will be delivered through the University of Ulster's diploma in Irish language. Under the agreement, the University of Ulster will have access to all course material for the Irish language qualification. St Mary's University College is still considering a proposal to develop all elements of the qualification. That is one example of ongoing work on Irish-medium education. There is also work between the two inspectorates on how Irish-medium education should be inspected etc. I am satisfied that a healthy stream of work is taking place through the North/South Ministerial Council on Irish language provision.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome any work that is being done on underachievement, attendance and autism.

In his statement, the Minister said:

"Many of the challenges facing policymakers in the education sector are common to both jurisdictions."

The spirit of the Belfast Agreement is that we should try to find an agreed way forward. It seems that the Minister is more happy to discuss with colleagues in Ireland than with us all of the issues that matter. Will the Minister sit down and come up with an agreed way forward so that we can all have proper input into the future?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not sure what the Member means by that. I pride myself on being accessible to all MLAs and political parties. I have had discussions with several political parties. I had discussions with your predecessor, who is now a member of a different political party. I am not aware of any requests from your good self to discuss educational matters with me. If you make a request, I will be happy to facilitate that. If you want to make that through the North/South Ministerial Council, feel free to do so. Just send me a letter, and I will be more than happy to meet you.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the planned expansion of services at Middletown, which, I understand, will increase its capacity from roughly 10 children to about 60 children a year. I also understand that they will all be from the North. Can the Minister give us any idea of the anticipated expansion of Middletown to allow the South's input to develop as well? I understand that a pilot project may be planned there in the longer term.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are two streams of work going on for mutual benefit at the Middletown centre. We in the North have different needs from those in the South. That is why the centre has worked quite well. It is based on the needs of each jurisdiction rather than just having a single programme of work. So we have two programmes of work going on, and those on both sides of the border will benefit from that. On the northern side, we have decided that we want direct interventions with children, whereas our Southern colleagues are more focused on research at this time, but we will benefit from both. So there is a research programme going on. Both jurisdictions are paying for the physical expansion of the centre as well. So this is jointly funded, and there are two different pieces of work going on for mutual benefit.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I note that DE's advertising campaign to promote the value of education was commended. That commendation clearly did not take into consideration the complaints that were received and the offence that was caused in respect of the ads that were exclusively in Irish. What was the cost of the entire campaign? Are any similar campaigns planned? How can the value of such a campaign be quantified?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not aware of any complaints being received, and I am not aware of any offence being caused by advertisements in the Irish language. There may be people who set out to be offended. Did you ever hear that one? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There may be people who are so totally opposed to the Irish language that, regardless of how it is managed or how it is dealt with, they will be offended. I note from recent media coverage that there is a healthy Irish language class taking place in east Belfast, of all places. That is a good thing. The Irish language does not belong to me; it does not belong to my party; and it does not belong to the nationalist/republican community. It belongs to the people of the island of Ireland.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You just hijacked it.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

When you embrace the Irish language, you will realise that it is no threat to anyone.

I have no record of that, but I will check with my Department to find out how many people were offended or took offence from it, though I suspect that I could name them from where I am standing.

I previously informed your colleague from East Derry how much the Irish language campaign cost additionally.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There is no "colleague from East Derry".

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

If you and Miss McIlveen have fallen out, it is not my fault.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think that it was around £4,000, and I think that that was £4,000 well invested. I do not have the figures in front of me for the overall cost of the advertising campaign, but it runs into several hundred thousand pounds.

How will it be evaluated? The plan is to run the advertising campaign for three years — in English and Irish — and it will be evaluated at the end of that three-year period. It will then be decided how the campaign should continue. Even the most recent evaluations of the campaign are quite good. Our Southern counterparts have identified it as being worthwhile, and they are interested in following up on that.

I was recently at the Education World Forum listening to one of the Education Ministers from one of the provinces of Canada. They have not done this because we are doing it, but they have also started a public advertising campaign about the benefits of education. So we are not the only Administration to do this. Others are doing it because they see the value of that medium of advertising. The advertising campaign will continue. It will be evaluated after a three-year period, which is reckoned to be the best period to evaluate any project such as this. Given that the initial evaluations are quite good, we should learn from that and continue to do this.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the agreement to consider the potential for further joint departmental co-operation across the island. In addressing educational underachievement and developing best practice, have both Ministers considered models of international best practice in other countries such as China and Sweden, which seem to be leading the way in addressing educational underachievement?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We have. The policy documents that my party currently adheres to are based on international best practice. I attended the Education World Forum recently to listen to Ministers from around 50 nations, provinces and states from across the world talking about their educational experience, the needs of their education system and how they were learning from across the world. I want to be in a position in which other nations look towards this island and say, "That is the best way to do education". Our recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) results have sparked international interest in how we deliver education here. I hope that that will continue.

I also hope that our participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) international report — delegates from the OECD were with us last week and have now gone away to prepare the report — will flag up areas in which the international community can learn from us and best practice from other nations that we can learn from as well. We scan the globe, in a sense, to ensure that our educational practices learn rom the best. We want others to learn from us as well.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

In relation to the joint evaluation report on the Dissolving Boundaries programme, can I ask the Minister about the issue of very successful A-level students in Northern Ireland not being offered places in universities in the Republic, particularly students who want to study veterinary science and cannot do a veterinary science degree in the North? Some of them have got five A*s but no offer. Can he offer any enlightenment?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Dissolving Boundaries programme of work is school-based and community-based. The issue that the Member raised has been raised at ministerial level and at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting by both Ministers. In fairness to Minister Quinn, I believe that he wants the issue resolved. However, the universities board in the South is an independent body; it sets its own entrance criteria. I understand that individual universities are also now expressing concerns about how our A-level students and those who achieve A*s are treated in admissions criteria. There is an internal lobby going on now to have that process changed. We have political support, and we have the support of a number of universities in the South that want to see that system changed. I will continue to lobby all relevant bodies to ensure that the system is changed so that the value of our examinations are recognised.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Over a period of time, people have become used to the Minister and his party dressing up North/South Ministerial Councils as something that they are not. Will he reassure the House that the Dissolving Boundaries programme that he has just alluded to is, in fact, a Dissolving Boundaries programme and that he would not like to turn it into a "Dissolving Borders" programme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

To be perfectly frank with you, I would like to turn it into a "Dissolving Borders" programme. I am an Irish republican. It may have escaped your attention that I believe that the best way forward for the people of the island of Ireland is reunification.

The work is what it says on the tin: it is about dissolving boundaries. It is about greater understanding among the people who live on the island of Ireland, whether they be unionist, nationalist, republican, non-aligned or whatever they may be. It is school-based. It is young people from Galway talking to young people in Armagh, and young people from Belfast talking to young people in Cork. It is a great project, because they are beginning to learn from one another. We have other projects in which young people learn about the experiences of young people living in Scotland, England and Wales as well. I have no difficulty with those, because my mind is not so narrow that I fear learning from anyone else.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. Will he give the House his assessment of the level of continued commitment of the Government of the Republic towards the Middletown autism centre, given that, last February, the president of Ireland opened a centre for autism at Galway university? I ask the Minister to outline whether he thinks that that signals a shift of emphasis by the Republic.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said to, I think, Mr Lunn when I spoke about what services are being delivered through the centre and why, the Southern Administration have different needs from us, and they have expressed different requirements from the Middletown centre. They seek research etc from the centre. That is their provision, and I accept that.

We want to have a more hands-on approach with more contact between young people and autism experts, and that will happen. The lessons learned from that will benefit the Southern side of the equation, and the lessons learned from the studies being carried out by the Southern side of the equation will benefit us.

The physical expansion of the centre is being paid for equally by the Department of Education here and the Department of Education and Skills in the South. The different needs are being managed by the Middletown centre. Minister Quinn has different provision needs across his jurisdiction. He is managing those, and that is a matter for him. However, I believe that the Middletown centre is delivering services that will be of real benefit to young people with autism and their families across the island of Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I recently met a number of parents of children and young people who suffer from autism, and they explained the difficulties that they face in sometimes having to educate teachers on how to deal with their autistic children. Will the Minister advise why he continues to prioritise expenditure for a relatively small number of young people, who are being taken out of the comfort of their normal settings and routines? Why is he doing that rather than investing in helping children in their normal settings and helping the teachers who teach them daily?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

If the Member has details of parents who are concerned about the provision that young people are receiving, I am happy for him to write to or contact me, and I will assist them in any way that I can.

I thought that we had passed the phase of political rather than educational objections to the Middletown centre. I suspect that the Member's objection is political because the Education Committee, after its most recent visit to the centre, was quite happy with the provision of service delivered there and felt that it met the needs of the young people involved. No one will be forced to go to the Middletown centre. If a family or young person does not wish to avail themselves of its services, they will not be forced to go.

I have not prioritised funding for the centre. This is not a case of one or the other. I have ring-fenced special educational needs funding for our young people, and it is not subject to any of the cuts imposed on us by the British Government. I have made money available to the Middletown centre — in universal terms, it is a small amount — to assist young people with autism and their families. The service is expanding from one that catered for 10 children per annum to one that caters for almost 60 children per annum. The number of people on the ground who assist families who have children with autism is increasing from 14 to nearly 30. So it is not a case of either/or; it is both. Provision is being made at a local level and through the Middletown centre.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we move to the Bill, I want to warn all sides of the House. I know that this is a very sensitive and emotive issue, and I certainly do not want Members rising in their place to personalise the debate. I know that there are many different views across the Chamber, but, if Members cross that line, I will deal with them, ask them to take their seats and move on. I expect a good standard of debate and moderation of language in the Chamber. Let us move on.

I call on the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford, to move Further Consideration Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment No 1, which deals with restricting lawful abortions to National Health Service premises, except in cases of urgency when access to NHS premises is not possible and where no fee is paid. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3 and 7, which deal with allowing magistrates' courts to operate on Sundays in exceptional circumstances. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6. Amendment No 5 seeks to ensure that an order governing the procedures of the commissioner for biometric material will be subject to affirmative resolution by the Assembly. Amendment Nos 4 and 6 are technical amendments. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in that group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Amendment No 1 is the only amendment in the first group of amendments for debate. As a petition of concern has been tabled in respect of amendment No 1, the Question will require cross-community support.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

After clause 11 insert

"Ending the life of an unborn child

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will indeed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does he agree that with the petition of concern we are today witnessing the ideological meltdown of Sinn Féin. We expect woolly thinking from members of the Alliance Party and the Green Party, but Sinn Féin is avowedly socialist — some would even say Marxist — in its policies. Yet, today we have them supporting an institution that is not only privately run but unregulated. When I look at Sinn Féin's economic policy on its website, I find that the party:

"called for the end to the misuse of taxpayers money in supporting private healthcare".

It may be OK to ask your friends to pay for private healthcare, but, in this case, it is obviously an ideological point that they cannot run away from. We have known for some time that Sinn Féin is morally bankrupt in everything that it has been involved in over the past 40 years. However, I know that the Member will agree with me that what we have here today is an example of its ideological bankruptcy.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I warn the whole House that we must try, as far as possible, to make sure that we do not totally and absolutely step outside the debate.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Sinn Féin, as a party, needs to justify why it has disagreed with Martin McGuinness to support the unregulated privatisation of abortion and, in the face of cross-party and cross-community support for the amendment, acted to block this effort.

The issue of abortion is one that generates high emotions on both sides of the argument, whether that be pro-life or pro-choice, but it is important that Members consider what is actually in the amendment and not what some in the media or some politicians have portrayed it to be. The amendment does not change the law on the terms of the grounds upon which an abortion is carried out. What it does do is prevent unregulated, unaccountable private clinics making financial gain from vulnerable women and their unborn children. It ensures that, in terrible, life-threatening circumstances, the best care is provided free at the point of need in the NHS.

I regret that Minister Ford has sought to undermine the normal parliamentary procedures that exist in this Assembly for Members to bring forward amendments. It is for Assembly Members, who are elected to represent the people, to legislate on issues of public interest. When the Marie Stopes clinic opened last year, there was public outcry and calls for action, which I know many Members in this House heard very clearly. As responsible legislators, we examined the issue in the Justice Committee. Today is the culmination of much work, done in a timely manner, and shows to the public that this Assembly does actually listen and has relevance.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Let me make some progress, and I will give way when I finish the point.

On the principle of requiring public consultation, the amendment is no different from the amendment that abolishes the scandalising of the court, or the Minister's amendment, which will be considered later, in respect of Sunday court openings; neither of which had public consultation. Unlike his amendment, we have had public debate on this amendment for almost two weeks. I believe that the public's voice has been heard. Again, I regret that at no point did the Minister seek to meet me, despite, on Friday of last week, me making repeated phone calls and leaving messages asking for the Minister to speak with me. Instead, he took to writing letters to Members and to broadcasting on the airwaves unnecessary confusion and alarm to cynically manufacture opposition to the amendment.

I welcome the Health Minister's statement that the morning-after pill, the fitting of an intrauterine device (IUD) and the dispensing of the progesterone-only contraceptive pill would be unaffected by the amendment. The most basic reading of the amendment makes it clear that proof is required that life has been ended. In each of those instances, there is no proof that life ever began in either fertilisation or implantation.

The Alliance Party and David Ford have acted in an underhand and duplicitous manner. I will respect someone who is upfront and honest, even when I do not agree with them. I regret, however, the tactics that have been deployed in opposing the amendment. The consequences of this action will have a lasting effect. To the public, I say: beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Turning to the detail in the amendment, subsection (1) of new clause 11A makes clear that existing legislation will remain in place and be available for the prosecution to bring forward a charge based upon those provisions. The amendment uses modern, simple, clear language, and provides an additional option for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to consider in the event of taking a case forward. The prosecutor could consider, based upon the circumstances, what charge to bring using the particular legislation that is most appropriate. That may be to seek life imprisonment or up to 10 years in prison with a fine. It will be for the prosecution to decide.

Subsection 2(a) would, in summary, prevent private clinics ending the life of an unborn child. Should they do that, there would be no defence available for breaking the law, as that would be available only on premises operated by a health and social care trust, which must be satisfied that other defences that may justify an abortion would be met. The Health Minister's guidance will certainly assist clinicians in the NHS on that issue.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I support the amendment. My concern is for women who are vulnerable and find themselves in life-threatening circumstances. Would a woman who finds herself in such a situation and who has attended a private clinic, such as Marie Stopes, receive the care required if a procedure were to result in a life-threatening complication? Would she have to pay for that care? If the answers to those questions are that her care cannot be met and that she would have to pay, does the Member agree that those who oppose the amendment are actually failing to protect vulnerable women?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member makes a very powerful contribution, and I hope that Members opposite who oppose this amendment will reflect on those comments.

Subsection (2)(b) makes provision for circumstances that cannot be envisaged. However, clearly, in the cases of urgency when a trust facility is not available, a defence can be made for ending the life of an unborn child. I cannot imagine circumstances where this would happen, but it is prudent for legislators to make such provision, as, obviously, nobody would seek to criminalise someone in this circumstance, bearing in mind that an assessment would need to be made that a defence exists for such an action.

Subsection (3) is self-explanatory for Members, and subsection (4) makes it clear that when referring to the term "lawfully" in subsection (2), this relates to any defence or exception that may exist under existing legislation.

Members need to ask themselves this: is the present criminal law on abortion effective in its protection of unborn children? Is there a way to tackle an increased risk of abortion under circumstances outside the law? Is it acceptable for an activity regulated only by the criminal law upon which a clinician seeks an exception or a defence for a fee to be paid to avail themselves of such an exception or defence? Can the health and life of mothers be as effectively safeguarded in a Marie Stopes clinic as in a hospital? I will seek to answer these questions, and, in doing so, I will address the question of the legislative competence of the Assembly to pass this amendment.

The Justice Committee considered this issue, and Members will be aware that a provision is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly if it is incompatible with any of the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights or is incompatible with European law. Abortion in Northern Ireland is a matter regulated by criminal law, primarily by two statutes: sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945. Although some may point to the years in which these laws were enacted as a basis to criticise and to justify their calls for the Abortion Act 1967 to be extended to Northern Ireland, the legislation reflects, to this very day, the values of our society, which is a society that upholds the sanctity of human life and affirms the most basic, fundamental human right of all — the right to life.

Those who challenge these laws, as has been the case in recent days, seek a different debate to what this amendment is about. They want different laws. I will have that debate, and we can take our positions. But that is not what today's decision is about. This amendment ensures that our values, affirmed by previous Assemblies that voted against extending the 1967 Act, are not undermined.

Members will, rightly, ask whether it is compatible with European law. The answer is, most assuredly, yes, it is. In the event that a medical termination of a pregnancy is regarded as a service within the meaning of the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union', is it, therefore, subject to the European rules on free movement related in these circumstances to article 57(d) "activities of the professions", and as such, is the amendment at variance with European law? On this issue, the Grogan case is cited, but it concerned abortions carried out in Great Britain, where abortion is explicitly provided for in statute. In Northern Ireland, abortion is governed solely by criminal law, and there is no pathway to an abortion, and, therefore, termination of pregnancy could not be defined as a service for the purposes of European law.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will, indeed.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Member accept that Marie Stopes does not shy away from acknowledging that it carries out illegal abortions all over the world? I have no doubt that it will do the same here in Northern Ireland.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do agree. Members who have an interest in this subject will know that, at conferences, leading Marie Stopes people have said that their objective is to get into a country and carry out illegal abortions to liberalise the law through the back door. Members need to be cognisant of what organisation they are supporting today. Furthermore, the discussion around European law should focus on the treaty provisions, rather than the services directive, as article 2(2)(f) of the services directive of 2006 states that the directive shall not apply to:

"healthcare services whether or not they are provided via healthcare facilities, and regardless of the ways in which they are organised and financed at national level or whether they are public or private".

Therefore, even if a medical termination of a pregnancy is to be regarded as a service under the treaty, it does not fall within the remit of the services directive, as abortion would for EU purposes. I point out to Members that the directive was made after the Grogan case, which was in 1991.

Justification is another issue that Members need to consider. It could be argued that termination of a pregnancy is a service, and therefore a justification for the amendment would be required to over-ride the treaty, which is allowable in European law. European case law demonstrates why the amendment would undoubtedly be permissible as a restrictive measure. The amendment is concerned with ensuring the effectiveness of the criminal law, and the European Court of Justice, drawing on the approach to combat the negative effects of gambling, gave discretion to the legislature in Germany that took state control over gambling. It noted the moral, religious and cultural factors that the state might take to that service, which was challenged by Ladbrokes.

The House of Lords, in finding the fox hunting ban compatible with EU law, noted that the prevention of cruelty to animals was a fundamental interest of the nation, and it was within Parliament's margin of discretion to address the concerns, despite the impact on freedom to provide services, upon which the Countryside Alliance brought the case. How much more important is the protection of our mothers and unborn children as opposed to animals?

The values of our society are reflected in the criminal law that regulates abortion. The amendment has been supported across the religious community, with the Catholic Church, Presbyterian denominations, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Reformed Presbyterian Church all calling on Members to vote in favour of the amendment.

In accordance with article 4(2) of the Treaty on the European Union, the EU is to respect the national identities of its member states:

"inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government."

Recent European Court of Justice case law provides a useful overview of the approach that the court is likely to take to justification of any restriction. Stanleybet International Ltd and others brought a case against a member state, and the European Court said in its ruling that:

"A Member State seeking to ensure a particularly high level of protection may consequently, as the Court has acknowledged in its case-law, be entitled to take the view that it is only by granting exclusive rights to a single entity which is subject to strict control by the public authorities that it can tackle the risks connected with the betting and gaming sector and pursue the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to gambling with sufficient effectiveness ... the national public authorities may indeed legitimately consider that the fact that, in their capacity as overseer of the body holding the monopoly, they will have additional means of influencing the latter’s conduct outside the statutory regulating and monitoring mechanisms is likely to secure for them a better command over the supply of games of chance and better guarantees that implementation of their policy will be effective than in the case where those activities are carried on by private operators in a situation of competition, even if the latter are subject to a system of authorisation and a regime of supervision and penalties".

That is the way in which the German legislature has approached the issue of gambling. How much more important is ensuring the effectiveness of our law in protecting the unborn child and vulnerable women?

In the case taken by Omega against German authorities that prohibited a laser game that involved human targets — playing at killing people — the European Court of Justice said in its ruling that:

"in accordance with the conception prevailing in public opinion, the commercial exploitation of games involving the simulated killing of human beings infringed a fundamental value enshrined in the national constitution, namely human dignity."

This is virtual killing that we are talking about. Paragraph 35 of the Omega judgement says:

"Since both the Community and its Member States are required to respect fundamental rights, the protection of those rights is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by Community law, even under a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom to provide services".

I make all these points because these issues were discussed by the Committee for Justice and were dealt with comprehensively. Yet today, Members are going to put those issues up as a smokescreen to oppose amendment No 1.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

There is a suggestion, and in some cases an allegation, that in a male-dominated Assembly, men — that is, those of us here who are men — are unable to decide on this issue. I have my own view on that, and it is a view that I have shared with women in my family, who dominate my family, and women outside my family. Does the Chairperson of the Committee have an opinion on that which may help allay any fears that anyone may have outside or inside this Assembly that men are inadequate in making a decision on this issue?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Just before the Member rises in his place, I wish to clarify that, at this time, he is not speaking as the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Member makes a valid point and it has been put out there for those who oppose amendment No 1. The thousands of women who voted for me in Lagan Valley knew that I was a man when they did so and knew that I would represent the views that they hold very dearly.

I will be voting on amendment No 1, and I will expect those who take the view that a man should not be talking about this particular issue, and want to put that forward as a reason why I should not be doing it, to abstain in the vote. That would be the consistent and logical thing to do. It would be hypocrisy for men who are opposed to amendment No 1 on the basis that it is a women-only issue to vote against it. I will wait with interest to see how those male colleagues decide to vote in this particular interest.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am going to move on and make progress.

The other issue around justification for a restrictive measure is its proportionality. A particularly interesting case, the European Commission versus Italy, provides another example. It involved an Italian prohibition on motorcycles towing trailers specially designed for them.

The trailers were lawfully produced and marketed in other member states, but their prohibition was regarded as justified by reasons that related to the protection of road safety. The court said:

"the fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State does not mean that the latter's rules are disproportionate".

In respect of Italy demonstrating other forms of regulation to regulate trailers and motorcycles in terms of danger to road safety, the court said:

"burden of proof cannot be so extensive as to require the Member State to prove, positively, that no other conceivable measure could enable that objective to be attained under the same conditions ... Although it is possible, in the present case, to envisage that measures other than ... prohibition ... could guarantee a certain level of road safety ... Member States cannot be denied the possibility of attaining an objective such as road safety by the introduction of general and simple rules which will be easily understood and applied by drivers and easily managed and supervised by the competent authorities."

So, Italy acted in respect of road safety because they could not be certain of the standards that would be applied outside state control. I refer Members to the Hansard record of the evidence session attended by the representatives of Marie Stopes International (MSI), which even resulted in the 'Belfast Telegraph' saying that the delegation did themselves no favours by being evasive in many of their answers.

During that session, the MSI representatives did not say how many unborn children have lost their lives, nor did they share information about the clinical assessments that are used to determine compliance with the criminal law. Should we not act to protect human life, or do we believe that unregulated private clinics that operate for financial gain based on nothing else but their word will comply with the law?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am going to make progress. The Member will have opportunity to make his point later.

The Justice Minister, in his letter that seeks to undermine the due process of the Assembly, says there is no urgency on the issue. That may be true on his part. Only when individual Members addressed the matter, after nearly six months when these serious gaps in the law were identified, has he sought to act, and he has done so in a way to frustrate those proposing this amendment. I do not recall the Minister of Justice commenting on the opening of an unregulated and unaccountable clinic by an organisation whose aim, as expressed at the Justice Committee, is children by choice not chance.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will give way to the Minister.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Perhaps the Member will tell us what the Minister of Health has done to follow up on his intention of introducing regulation, which he stated in the Chamber on 26 November.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Once again, the Minister of Justice, Pontius Pilate-like, seeks to wash his hands of one of the most serious issues facing our Province. The Health Minister has published that guidance. However, the Justice Minister again fails to recognise that that guidance is applicable only to the NHS. That is the very reason why this amendment needs to be made.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister will have his opportunity to dig his hole further later on.

The Justice Minister has, today, again laid responsibility on the Health Minister, who has acted by producing guidance. He has circulated that guidance within the Executive for the NHS. However, it is for the criminal law — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber. Allow the Member to continue.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is for the criminal law and justice agencies to deal with abortion in private clinics, which the Justice Minister has responsibility for. Due to his ambivalence, the Justice Committee and individual Members of the House have had to do what he should have been doing.

My next point deals with the point made in the Minister's letter that MLAs should take time over this issue. In addressing the issue of urgency, the European Grand Chamber, in the case of an Italian ruling that prevented non-pharmacists from being involved or investing in retail pharmacy, said:

" It is important that, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, a Member State should be able to take protective measures without having to wait until the reality of those risks becomes fully apparent."

I say to Members, in the face of what even the Justice Minister regards as unregulated and unaccountable private clinics that require attention — albeit belated, six months later — we cannot and should not, when dealing with the matter of human life, take the risk of allowing the reality of those risks to become fully apparent. It is much too grave a matter to play fast and loose politics with it.

My final point on proportionality, which is particularly relevant in the present context, concerns the finding of Lord Hope in the fox hunting case when considering EU law:

"the extent of the restriction has a part to play in the assessment of proportionality."

He noted that the fox hunting ban was aimed at activities in the UK and that interference with the free movement of goods and services was "purely incidental".

It is only by creating this specific modernised offence that the criminal law, which encapsulates the values of our society, can be made most effective through the National Health Service, which requires that trust boards have appropriate governance arrangements in place to ensure ongoing compliance with the law that governs termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland through robust systems of internal control, ensuring that policies and procedures for the day-to-day activities of the trust are implemented and followed.

Even in the event of some form of state regulation of abortion in private clinics — should that even be possible, which is entirely questionable — the very nature of the private clinic, which charges for abortion, presents an insurmountable challenge to effective regulation. Some Members will argue for that here today. Members should consider that, given the interests of both the willing seller of the abortion and the willing buyer, easily obtaining information to identify compliance with the criminal law and protection of the unborn child will be difficult, if not impossible. The actual or potential victim in this case — the unborn child protected by the criminal law — is not in a position to alert the authorities to any actual or anticipated breach of the criminal law. Even if an abortion were not criminal under the law of Northern Ireland and there was a positive legal pathway for it to take place in NHS facilities, exchanging money for ending the life of an unborn child should cause us all a serious moral dilemma. For many of us in the House, it is morally abhorrent that vulnerable women and their children, who are in grave physical and mental danger, should pay a private clinic in circumstances in which a life is to be ended. Financial gain from such misery should cause dismay to all of us.

We also have an obligation under article 2 to protect the life of all our citizens, including pregnant women. The discharge of that duty can be carried out only in institutions over which we have direct control in the context of an abortion, which is known to carry risk for the expectant mother, and when it will almost inevitably be the state that has to bear the responsibility for treating any adverse medical consequences to vulnerable women that arise from any private sector termination of a pregnancy. My colleague Michelle McIlveen made that point earlier.

The high value that the criminal law of Northern Ireland assigns to the life of the unborn child, with no fewer than three legislative provisions seeking to protect unborn life, is a powerful factor against simply taking a wait-and-see approach or exploring the possibility of increased regulation. Regulation would inevitably act only if evidence emerged of the possible commission of a criminal offence. Both the willing seller and the willing buyer are highly incentivised to avoid generating evidence of any offence. The unborn child has no voice to alert the authorities that an offence may be taking place.

That is particularly relevant in our context, in light of the known ideological position of Marie Stopes International, whose vision is — Members should listen to this — "Children by choice not chance." It opposes our criminal law, which protects our children, whether it is by choice or chance. It seeks and wants the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

I support the amendment, but, shamefully, the vote in the Assembly has already been predetermined by the blocking mechanism deployed by Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. I appeal to Members to send a very clear message that we support vulnerable women and unborn children and call on the Justice Minister, who after six months has belatedly accepted that he has responsibility to act, to act quickly. That course of action is contained in the amendment.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Níl Sinn Féin i bhfách le ginmhilleadh. Vótáil Sinn Féin i gcoinne Acht 1967 a leathnú go dtí an Tuaisceart nuair a moladh sin sa Tionól. Creideann Sinn Féin gur chóir don ghinmhilleadh a bheith ar fáil i gcás éignithe, droch-úsáide gnéasaí, col, nó i gcás ina bhfuil beatha mná torraí i mbaol.

I begin by setting out the Sinn Féin position on abortion. Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. We opposed and voted against the extension of the 1967 Act to the North of Ireland when it was proposed in the Assembly. That remains our position. Sinn Féin believes that, in the case of rape, sexual abuse or incest or when a pregnant woman's life is in danger, the option of termination should be available. That has been our position for some time, and it remains our position. Sinn Féin also believes that the issue should be addressed in a comprehensive manner, involving a multiagency response that develops effective services for sexual health and sex education, fuller access to child support provision and specific support for single parents.

In our party, there is a wide range of views on the issue, as you would expect, as there is on many issues. Over the past number of days, I have spoken with many members of my party. Many people have differing issues and concerns, which I respect. What struck me at our latest discussion was the sense of camaraderie and respect for other people's opinions. It is on days like this that I am proud to be a member of Sinn Féin.

When this issue has arisen in the past, I have listened carefully to contributions from individuals in other parties. Most recently, some of those individuals have conceded that they, too, support the need for a woman to have the option of a termination when her life is at risk. Two of the signatories to today's amendment — Paul Givan of the DUP and Alban Maginness of the SDLP — confirmed on radio that they supported termination when a mother's life is in danger. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mike Nesbitt, has indicated that he will vote against the amendment, and comments from the DUP leader, Peter Robinson, in the 'Belfast Telegraph' last year suggest that he, too, is of a similar mind. So, it is not unreasonable to pose this question: why was the amendment tabled?

The amendment represents the wishes and views of a few. It is a clear attempt to restrict the ability of a woman whose life is at risk to seek a termination that would save her life. It runs contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and those who tabled it should be ashamed of themselves. Their underlying intention has been concealed in legal speak, mixed messaging and attempts to sow confusion. They have even sought to exploit this important issue for cheap electoral gains in the recent Mid Ulster by-election. They have come up with one red herring after another and one excuse after another. When we strip away their excuses, the weak rationale for their position is absolutely exposed. I very much look forward to hearing and seeing how people — men and women — across the House vote on this. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Excuse number one: it is an issue of private healthcare versus public healthcare. In Sinn Féin's view, in an ideal world all aspects of health would be dealt with in the National Health Service. I would have more respect for the position of the DUP and Alban Maginness if they were consistent on this, but they are not. They maybe should have led the demand for the publication of the guidance from the Health Minister, for which we have all been waiting so patiently for a long period. They maybe should have waited until that guidance was published, analysed, debated and made fit for purpose. They maybe should have taken actions to ensure that, in the traumatic circumstances in which a woman might find herself pregnant and her life at risk, the National Health Service would be there for her. Maybe then we could listen to their argument about emergency procedures — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— outside the National Health Service. Of course, the reality is that the National Health Service is heavily dependent on private health referrals from NHS to private clinics for a wide range of treatments. Currently, a significant number of National Health Service operations are carried out in private health clinics funded by the taxpayer. The failure of the Health Minister to have guidance in place to give clinicians the legal assurance required to allow them to intervene in life-threatening circumstances at the request of the mother — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— represents gross negligence on his behalf. In the absence of proper guidance, there can be no other conclusion but that the amendment is aimed at ensuring that no other avenue will be open to a woman in a life-threatening situation to opt for a termination . Where a termination might or might not take place is not the issue. The important thing is that it happens within the law. Any institution that provides for termination, whether in the National Health Service or the private healthcare domain, must, of course, be regulated. However, the amendment is not about medical emergencies or ensuring that women get the best treatment in those difficult circumstances; it is about limiting women's right to have that treatment.

Excuse number two: we are not really changing the law. I nearly fell off my chair when I heard Alban Maginness yesterday getting himself further entangled on the hook in an interview. He said something like "It is not really changing the law". This is the Criminal Justice Bill. If it does not change the law, what does it do? It is an amendment to the law. If it were supported today, the law would change. That is the whole point of legislation. We have a letter from the Minister of Justice to every MLA outlining his concerns about what it might mean. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Health Minister, Mr Poots, has not bathed himself in glory, spending his energy on having a public legal spat with the Minister of Justice instead of doing the job that he is supposed to be doing. We await his guidelines with interest. If reports of them are anything to go by, he has missed an opportunity to introduce guidelines that comprehensively deal with this important issue.

Excuse number three is that Marie Stopes —

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member mentioned the document produced by the Health Minister. Does the Member agree that it was rather discourteous, to say the least, that that document was released to Mark Carruthers of the BBC on Sunday in a TV programme rather than being distributed at least to the members of the Health Committee?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I was not aware of how it was circulated, but, on this matter, the Health Minister has many questions to answer.

Excuse number three is that the Marie Stopes clinic is not regulated. I listened carefully to what the representatives from Marie Stopes had to say about regulation and the law. They at all times stated that they wanted to work within the law. It is strange, though, that the same Paul Givan and Alban Maginness did not seem to be concerned about the regulation of other clinics. Each time they took a position, they landed themselves in another mess.

Tabling this amendment is perhaps the worst example that we have seen to date in the Assembly of stroke politics. The amendment is about trying to close down the Marie Stopes clinic, and, as a result, limiting the opportunity for a woman to exercise the option of a termination when her life is in danger. The Members who tabled the amendment should have the courage to say so. This was an attempt to bring us back instead of forward. It was an attempt to criminalise women in vulnerable situations, and it is unacceptable. The criminal justice arena is not the place to deal with a sensitive healthcare issue such as this.

It is ironic that Paul Givan has described the use of a petition of concern to block the amendment that he and the SDLP — I should say, some members of the SDLP — have tabled as cynical. In the past two years, the petition of concern has been used on just over a dozen occasions: seven times by the DUP on its own; three times by the UUP and DUP together, presumably at the instigation of the Ulster Unionist Party, who needed DUP support; and the remainder by Sinn Féin and the SDLP together. So, on a majority of occasions, the petition of concern has been used by a single party — the DUP — as a means of blocking motions in the Assembly. The petition of concern is a safeguard to ensure that critical decisions are made on a cross-community basis. If ever there was a need to use one, it is now, to stop the introduction of draconian legislation.

I thank Steven Agnew from the Green Party and Anna Lo from the Alliance Party. I also thank the other 28 Members from Sinn Féin, who, along with me, signed the petition of concern. It contrasts with the failure of leadership in how we deal with these issues on this island. In the South, the failure to legislate is nothing short of disgraceful. Despite Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights rulings, the X case of a 13-year-old girl who became pregnant after rape and the most recent tragic death of a young woman, Savita Halappanavar in Galway, we still do not have legislation. What happened to that young woman should not be allowed to happen again [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The absence of legislative implementation of these judgements has created very dangerous grey areas in which, as we all now know too well, women can die. Five successive Governments in the South of Ireland have failed to legislate.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have a wide-ranging view on this in Northern Ireland, but is it in order for the Member to cite cases from the Republic of Ireland and suggest that they have not brought about powers to change the laws? We are here —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

— to legislate for this part of the United Kingdom.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. It is not a point of order. Let us move on.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

We do not want to hear about Paddy —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Sometimes, Members believe that our position North and South is different. Let me reassure the House that our position is exactly the same North and South. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

In the North, the track record of the authorities is little better than it has been in the South: the withdrawal of guidance needed to bring the clarity that ensures that medical practitioners in the health service have the assurance and support of the law to allow them to carry out their work and, when required, act to save lives.

Statistics tell us that restriction of access does not prevent women from procuring terminations. That is evidenced by the estimated — I stress "estimated" — 7,000 Irish women who travel to other jurisdictions every year to access terminations. If we further restrict the ability of women to access services to which they are legally entitled, we will add further and unnecessary risk by forcing those women to procure abortifacient medications from the internet in the absence of medical supervision.

The amendment is clearly an attempt to restrict the right of a woman to obtain a termination in life-threatening circumstances. It is an attempt to further compound our trauma by marginalising women at a time in our life when we are most vulnerable. Are we to wait until we have a repeat of the Savita Halappanavar case before we are shaken to our senses? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Are we to wait for another tragedy before those who tabled the amendment cease to play with the lives of women? Are we to continue to foment confusion, or are we to bring clarity and certainty to the need for the rights of a woman in this particularly difficult situation? Tagging this amendment on to the Further Consideration Stage of a miscellaneous provisions Criminal Justice Bill does a grave disservice to the issue and insults women who have undergone the termination of a much-wanted pregnancy that threatened their life. The use of an amendment in this instance bypasses the need for public consultation and disenfranchises the public from having their say on this important and sensitive issue. It is bizarre that we would publicly consult for a minimum of 12 weeks on the High Hedges Act, but we did not seek the views of the public and medical practitioners on this.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Protecting the lives of pregnant women is not a difficult choice. It is the only choice. The need for this protection will not simply go away.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak as an individual and as party spokesperson on behalf of the SDLP, which has consistently and always been a pro-life party, be it in the defence of life for adults or the most vulnerable — the unborn. I speak out of compassion for the mother and, similarly, out of compassion for her child, particularly those most vulnerable — the unborn.

I have just left a group of people who have been very active in delivering a petition, signed by a quarter of a million people, to the Assembly, and they are deeply concerned about what is happening here today. They are concerned about the defence of the most vulnerable in our society — the unborn child.

Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the cross-party and cross-community group of Members. It reflects the widespread support for strict regulation of abortion here in the North and across the island of Ireland. Any private organisation in the North offering to abort the life of an unborn child would currently do so outside the remit of regulatory bodies. That being the case, there would be insufficient oversight of those private organisations in the current framework. The amendment addresses that issue head-on and resolves it in a straightforward manner.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Member accept that the amendment is about regulating all abortions in Northern Ireland by bringing them clearly and singularly into the health service? Is the Member aware that, in 2011, a Marie Stopes doctor was struck off for his treatment of five patients, including an Irish woman? She was left fighting for her life after Marie Stopes in London carried out an abortion on her. The doctor perforated the woman's uterus and left part of her unborn baby inside her. When she returned to Ireland, she was rushed to hospital and spent three months there. Is that a credible organisation to carry out abortions in Northern Ireland?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I hear very carefully what the Member has said. Indeed, the amendment addresses that issue. It says to us that the purpose of the amendment is to bring any control, regulation or treatment that a patient may receive in regard to an abortion in the exceptional circumstances where an abortion is legally permitted into the National Health Service.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am delighted that the Member has given way. I want to point out that Marie Stopes in Northern Ireland does not perform any surgical operations. It only gives oral medication within the first nine weeks of pregnancy.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the Member contradicting the person that she co-signed the petition of concern with, who said that it was there for emergencies? If it is some sort of pill, it is not going to deal with an emergency situation.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I hear more clarity today from some Members around Marie Stopes than I did when it gave evidence to the Committee for Justice. I found it most elusive, most evasive, and absent was any detail or clarity around its functions and role. It was most disappointing to have it there. Any Member who was sitting there wanted to be informed about its role and what it does, whether we like it or not or whether we agree or disagree with it. The circumstances in which the life —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Very briefly.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I know that the Member wishes to make progress, but I want to deal with the point made by Anna Lo. The Member will be aware that, at the Justice Committee, the Marie Stopes representative said that under the law there is nothing to stop it carrying out surgical abortions right up to full term.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for that.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I am not giving way any further.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I would like to respond to that.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

There will be plenty of time for Members to respond later. I am interested in the discourse here if it contributes to the debate, but Members can use their own time for a bit of ping-pong back and forward.

The circumstances in which the life of an unborn child may be lawfully ended are, quite rightly, restricted to the most serious cases in which the life of the mother is at risk. As I have heard others argue, the amendment does not undermine any pregnant woman's ability to receive emergency treatment in life-threatening circumstances. That emergency treatment is readily available in the NHS, and the amendment does not, as some claim, shut down debate. Those who advocate the liberalisation of the law on this issue can do so only through the Assembly. They are free to attempt to convince elected Members of the need for and the benefits, as they see them, of such liberalisation of the law. They have failed utterly to do so.

The amendment removes the potential for a private and for-profit organisation to attempt to circumvent the law on abortion and to break the law on abortion by operating outside the regulatory framework. The pro-abortion lobby is keen to push the boundaries of the law on the issue. Many suspect that that is the motivation behind the sudden appearance of a Marie Stopes International clinic in Belfast. It is not appropriate for private organisations, be they for profit or not, to seek to undermine the law while hiding their activities from public scrutiny.

The Assembly remains the primary place for legislation on this and other matters. Guidelines on the limited circumstances for lawful termination in Northern Ireland are currently being consulted on. They should clarify the issue for all concerned. The amendment, if passed, will help to ensure that those guidelines are followed. Tacaím leis an leasú. I support the amendment.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Clearly, this is a sensitive, delicate, and emotive issue. It would be useful if everyone tempered their remarks, because many people in the community are in distress about this matter. However, it is an important issue for those vulnerable women in our society who need help and support. It is up to this legislative body to provide them with the confidence and assurance that they are getting the proper advice, support and help when they need them.

Maybe because of today's debate, this issue will be the subject of more discussion and debate. There may be further opportunities not just for those in this House but for the wider public to take forward that debate. However, I am concerned that if the amendment is rejected, an unregulated process will be ongoing that provides an opportunity for people and organisations that are possibly unscrupulous and do not have the best interests of those vulnerable women at heart.

This is not about just public versus private health. This is about ensuring that all those in need of advice, treatment and support can have the confidence — and we can have the confidence — that those giving that support, treatment and advice are doing so in the best interests of those vulnerable individuals who come forward for that help.

The problem is that this is a matter of criminal law, and one of the difficulties that we have is that it is unregulated. I cannot support an unregulated advice and treatment process for those very vulnerable people. That is my difficulty in this process.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Happy to give way, yes.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Has the Member made any attempt to seek an update as to whether Marie Stopes is entering into the regulatory framework delivered by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA)?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that. When representatives of Marie Stopes were in front of the Justice Committee and I asked them that very question, they said they were making moves towards that. However, there is no basis, as I understand it, for the proper regulation of it. The RQIA does not have to do it. In the end, it is a voluntary process, which, as we all know, is worth very little if those who are organising it and running it do not want to avail themselves of it. I will give way.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the honourable Member accept that many of us will be shocked by Mr Lyttle's comments, because he shows a complete ignorance of the role of the RQIA? The RQIA is there to ensure basic hygiene, car parking and staffing levels. The RQIA has absolutely no say in the moral judgements as to whether an abortion should be carried out or not. Therefore, RQIA regulation is utterly meaningless as far as the fundamental issue here is concerned: whether the abortion was carried out within the law. I am surprised, as I am sure he is, that someone should stand up and show his ignorance on this issue by not knowing his facts.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

OK.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Elliott. Surely if the organisation needs to be regulated, and it consistently has said that it would like to be regulated, is it not the duty of the Health Minister to do that?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am not going to speak for the Health Minister under any circumstances, particularly these circumstances. He is well able to speak for himself. However, the point as I understand it is that there is no process for regulation. That is the difficulty that we have and why those who signed the petition of concern are allowing that process to go ahead with an unregulated system. That is the problem that we have.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No. I do —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not persist. I think the Member has been very generous with his time.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As always, Mr Speaker, I am too generous; that is my difficulty. The fact is that we and the public need a wider debate on the matter. Without regulation, I am fearful for the help and support that these vulnerable women require and for the life of the unborn child. That is my first and foremost concern, which is why I signed and support the amendment. We all have a duty here to protect the rights of women and the rights of the unborn child, particularly —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has been the soul of generosity to the House today in giving way. There have been various suggestions about the good faith or otherwise of Marie Stopes. Much has been made of it, and we are left to make a judgement, correctly or not. Does the Member agree that the amendment covers any private health clinic, not only those that are here now but those that may come in the future? It is wrong to base a decision on whether the amendment should be accepted on the good faith or otherwise of a single health clinic. The amendment is supposed to cover all situations.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I totally accept the Member's suggestion. That is why it is important, that is why it is vital, that we have a proper regulation system in place before any private clinic of this description is permitted to operate.

I hope that we recognise and support all those people who are in need of help at this time and that it is people who are vulnerable and in need of support whom we are trying to protect and help. I thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

My party wholeheartedly agrees that the regulation of lawful abortions not on health and social care trust premises in Northern Ireland requires attention and careful consideration. However, we believe that this is the wrong way to go about trying to address the issue.

As a legislative Assembly, we have a responsibility to consult and engage properly with the public on major changes to the law, and today's amendment, by any definition, is a major change. Indeed, in the few short weeks since the amendment has appeared, the strength of feeling and lobbying, and the hundreds of interviews, conversations, blogs, articles and debates have demonstrated the absolute necessity for formal consultation so that all voices can be heard and all opinions expressed in a structured and meaningful way.

The Justice Committee spent many hours taking evidence and going through the Bill line by line — rightly so. However, we have not done that for this amendment. The Bill will introduce legislative change regarding sex offender notification requirements, DNA and fingerprint retention, and how we deal with the trafficking of human beings. The changes proposed by Mr Givan and Mr Maginness are of no less importance and, therefore, deserve exactly the same level of scrutiny and consultation. If we as legislators are to do our job, we have a responsibility to do that diligently and in a way that is structured and allows us to take evidence and have thoughtful reflection. We have a responsibility to go through a Bill line by line. That allows us to scrutinise proposals and give us the very best opportunity to reflect on the mandates that we hold and to protect the integrity of the law and the constituents whom we represent.

What message will we convey, therefore, about the importance of every stage of the legislative process if we make major changes to the law that have not been discussed in the prescribed way of scrutiny in all our relevant Statutory Committees? It is extremely disappointing that Mr Givan, who holds the important responsibility of Chair of the Justice Committee, and Mr Maginness, who is a learned counsel, should use the methods that they have chosen to introduce major legislative change rather than give the Bill the due process and respect that it deserves, and the public the right to be consulted. This opportunism is populist and to the detriment of the House and society as a whole.

The passage of the amendment would have even more damaging consequences for the women and families it affects. It proposes to render the provision of lawful abortion unlawful other than that which is carried out on health and social care trust premises. That gives little consideration to women who may have undergone all related treatment in a private facility.

At this point, it needs to be pointed out that it is not about the Marie Stopes clinic: it is about — not clinics that may come to Northern Ireland — a range of clinics that already deliver that service in Northern Ireland today. Not all of them do so at the point of delivery for profit, which has been suggested in remarks about Marie Stopes. There will be women who have paid into health insurance. Parents may even have paid into health insurance for a younger woman. At the time when the health insurance was taken out, they would have done so without knowing of or imagining the tragic moment when the service would be required and the young woman would go to a private facility and avail herself of the health insurance that she never believed for a second that she would ever have to use.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You are wrong.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue. The Member has the Floor.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

That gives little consideration to women who may have to undergo all related treatment at a private facility up to the point at which it is decided that an abortion under the law is required. During such a sensitive and intensely personal process, women could then face unfamiliar staff and surroundings, which could bring further grief and distress in an already, for many, intolerable situation. In such a situation, when the patient may feel as though everything is in flux, as much stability and consistency as possible needs to be provided.

This amendment proposes to force women into public facilities, even when they may have been helped and guided through that most difficult of journeys in a private facility by staff whom they have come to trust and depend upon. To be faced with new people in new circumstances and alien surroundings will place an additional and potentially intolerable burden on someone who is at her most vulnerable and, potentially, suicidal. Not only is that unfair, it is unnecessary if we are to agree on sensible alternative proposals for regulating the providers of the process.

There is a role for the RQIA. The Health Minister has said that he will look at that, although he has been kicked and dragged screaming through the courts in order to do so. As to the role of the RQIA, reference has been made to its existing role. Well, if that role needs to be enhanced, that is the Health Minister's responsibility. So, why are we not, today, having a health debate which requires the Health Minister to bring forward proposals? Indeed, if there is a belief that the RQIA is insufficient to provide that robust regulation, then let the Health Minister regulate. Tell us where those deficiencies lie, Minister. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Let him bring forward the appropriate changes to the regulatory framework. We should not turn to criminal law as our first option, but rather to the appropriate health regulation.

There is a real danger that the amendment will complicate the legal process and cause much further confusion. Members have said that the amendment is clear. If it were clear, we would not be debating the possible consequences of its implementation. Again, that is why full consultation is needed on such an important matter.

The Justice Minister has highlighted the difficulties with the use of the term:

" an unborn child at any stage of that child’s development",

which is undefined and is not found anywhere else in UK or Irish legislation. The legislation that is proposed in the amendment would also run parallel to existing legislation that provides for a lesser penalty. It raises a number of questions. For example, why have higher penalties for illegal abortions that are carried out on health and social care trust premises? For effective prosecution, ambiguity needs to be removed, not enhanced. That brings uncertainty to prosecutors and is, therefore, a further reason why the measure is unsound.

Furthermore, there are potential clashes with existing European law, which could lead to unnecessary proceedings at European level, and which, if this amendment had been properly considered, could have been scoped out well in advance. This takes us back to the fact that those who tabled the amendment, in their eager efforts to produce something that looks like regulation, have put something forward that falls far short of a worthy and considered amendment.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What have you done?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

They have not properly developed, properly consulted on or properly considered the full impact of this policy. The women of Northern Ireland deserve better. We all deserve better. It is for those reasons that I am opposed to this amendment today.

Finally, if we want to have an abortion debate, let us have that debate and let us deal with those difficult issues, but let us not pretend that this ill-thought-out amendment either moves us forward or does anything adequate to protect the health and rights of women and the unborn child.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

This is one of the most sensitive issues that we will deal with. At the commencement, I want to say that we should place women and the unborn child at the forefront of our considerations. We should do the best for the women of Northern Ireland, and they should receive the very best healthcare. That healthcare and support should be provided in the National Health Service to give them the best care at the most critical time of their lives.

Northern Ireland has a proud record of being pro-life. By not extending the Abortion Act 1967, there are some 90,000 people — 90,000 people — alive today. That is greater than, or certainly very close to, the number in any of our parliamentary constituencies. Is there anybody who would seriously argue that that was a mistake?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

First, will he give us the evidence for that by telling us what his figures are based on? Secondly, does he have evidence of how many of those children are in care today and how many are living in poverty or deprivation? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that that is disappointing, but at least it is honest. The Green Party is pro-abortion, and it wants to extend the Abortion Act 1967. The shameful thing today is that the pro-abortionist in the Alliance Party, Anna Lo, who is leading her party on this, is going to carry Sinn Féin across the line in bringing in abortion by the back door in Northern Ireland. The pro-abortion leader in the Alliance Party, Anna Lo, along with the pro-abortion Green Party, will bring Sinn Féin across the line. Today, if never before, Sinn Féin has defined itself as the pro-abortion party for Northern Ireland. The reality is that a democratic deceit like no other has been perpetrated in the House. Sinn Féin knows that its Members are divided on the issue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will in a moment.

Its Members are divided on the issue, and I know that that is the case. On matters of conscience, I say to Sinn Féin, even at this stage, to come back to a pro-life position. Do not be led by the nose by Caitríona Ruane. Those on your Benches who know that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child should not be complicit in actions that bring in abortion by the back door in Northern Ireland. Why is the democratic deceit of Sinn Féin so bad? It is because the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland have spoken. As Patsy McGlone told us, a quarter of a million people across Northern Ireland have spoken. On a cross-community basis, Northern Ireland does not want to bring in extra abortion. A democratic deceit is being used to bring in abortion by the back door. However, Sinn Féin could not have brought in abortion by the back door on its own.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will in a moment.

Sinn Féin could not have brought in abortion by the back door on its own. It needed to be carried across by the Green Party and the Alliance Party. I ask those people who boast of their Presbyterianism to listen to what the Presbyterian Church has told them. Or is it the case, as it is for their leader —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will in a moment.

Is it the case, as it is for their leader — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must be heard.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

— that it is Presbyterian on a Sunday and voting against it on a Monday? That is the big question that they have to ask themselves.

In many ways, today's —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Shame on you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

— will be a pyrrhic defeat. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not be pointing across the Chamber.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The amendment is already defeated because the Alliance Party and the Green Party have refused to listen to the cross-community view of Northern Ireland. They have refused to listen to the democratic will of the House. A simple whip from the Alliance Party would have stopped the petition of concern. I ask Sinn Féin Members, before they go through the Lobbies, to examine their conscience. Surely —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In a moment.

Surely the most vulnerable life in our society is the life of the unborn child. Those boys and girls have nobody to speak for them. They are totally reliant on what we do in this House. They are protected by the cross-community will of Northern Ireland. However, a democratic deceit has been perpetrated against them. Not for the first time, the Alliance Party has carried Sinn Féin across the line.

Is it not a shame that, in our United Kingdom, the most dangerous place for a child is in its mother's womb? The place in which, by fact, it is most likely to be harmed and hurt is in the mother's womb. That is why we were right to protect life. That is why the Alliance Party voters — I spoke to many of them, from Kircubbin right the way down — want us to protect life. But, no: a democratic deceit had to be perpetrated.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member explain how he can say that the DUP and the SDLP are pro-life when they are now legislating, for the first time, for abortion to take place under the National Health Service? They are now saying — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The amendment is very clear.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Go away to Westminster. They need your intellect.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has taken an intervention. Allow the Member to finish.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I cannot understand how Mr Givan, who presented the amendment, has commented many times from a sedentary position today. He has constantly barraged everyone who has spoken.

I repeat the point: the DUP and SDLP are legislating for when and where an abortion can take place, so they can no longer claim to be pro-life.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The reality of that intervention is that it was as weak and unconvincing as Caitríona Ruane's attempt to explain birdwatching in Colombia. There are times when I am glad that Sinn Féin takes an abstentionist position at Westminster. If the Member of Parliament were to take that level of pure idiotic argument to the House of Commons, whatever would they think of us?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. It is as ridiculous as suggesting that those Members in Westminster who support the reduction in the threshold for abortion there are voting for abortion.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The honourable Member makes the case very well. That level of nonsense has come forward from Sinn Féin Members, yet they know that their voters do not want abortion brought into Northern Ireland. That is why they have run from this debate. They know that the voters of Northern Ireland, on a cross-community basis, want the unborn child to be protected.

In cases where a clinician makes a decision, we will support the law. No extension — absolutely none — has been proposed beyond what is there currently.

There have been attempts to smear and cause deceit. All that the Justice Minister's comments about potentially the law this and potentially the law that have done is to show someone who is not across his brief, and who is trying to lead the Alliance Party in two different directions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I warned the whole House. Let us not personalise the debate. This is a very emotive and sensitive debate, not only in the Chamber but outside it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is just —

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Member accept that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are totally opposed to abortion and support the protection of the unborn child? Does he agree with me that, distinctively, there is no difference between a surgical abortion and a medical abortion?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. The Member makes his point very well. That is why the charade of the use —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In a moment; let me make some progress. That is why there has been the charade of the abuse of the petition of concern.

Overwhelmingly, Northern Ireland is very clear. Our churches are clear, our people are clear and, overwhelmingly, the women of Northern Ireland are clear that they want the life of the unborn child to be protected. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. [Interruption.]

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The women of Northern Ireland —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again I warn Members that they should not debate across the Chamber. I warn all sides of the Chamber.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a cross-community basis, the women of Northern Ireland — many of them were among the quarter of a million of our people who signed a petition — are very clear that they do not want the Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland. So, the question before us is why did Members of the Alliance Party take Sinn Féin across the line on abortion. Why did they do that? They know in their hearts that there is overwhelming support, on a cross-community basis, for the amendment that has been so excellently proposed. They know in their hearts that Roman Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians. Methodists, those of Islamic religions, those of Jewish religions and those of no religion overwhelming want this amendment to be passed. In those circumstances, why did they chose to use a petition of concern to deny the cross-community will of Northern Ireland and the will of the House?

Once again, the Alliance Party has proven itself to be nothing more than a flag of convenience for Sinn Féin. It has provided a flag of convenience to bring in abortion into Northern Ireland via the back door. I ask why this was put back — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In a moment.

I do ask why, when you know that our people, on a cross-community basis, do not want it. You had the opportunity; you could have let this go to a vote in the House and let the democratically elected people of Northern Ireland make their decision. However, in the knowledge that a cross-community majority in Northern Ireland wanted this amendment and that the House would vote for it, you took away the democratic rights of the Northern Ireland people —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As far as is possible, will the Member come back to the amendment and in some way link his comments to it? Let us also not use the word "you" across the Chamber.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes.