Tonia Antoniazzi MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Major Sporting Events · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps her Department is taking to support the delivery of major sporting events.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Major Sporting Events · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for hosting the women’s rugby world cup reception in Speaker’s House yesterday evening. It was a magnificent event. I took part in the competition in 1998—not this year, dash it all! With England hosting the women’s rugby world cup it is vital and women and girls see the legacy of those who have gone before them and championed their country. Sport is so important to the future of women and girls. Will my right hon. Friend join me in committing to securing a legacy for women and girls who will be able to see rugby being played across England and the home nations? My last point, if you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, is that the women’s Euros kick off this week, and even though it is the wrong-shaped ball, I am excited to see the Lionesses and the Welsh football team in the competition. It is so important that we celebrate women in sport.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Investment: Technology Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Select Committee and the ITV all-party parliamentary group, last night we hosted an event in Parliament with ITV and UTV there. What conversations is the Minister having with public sector broadcasters like ITV about future investment in Northern Ireland?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have conducted a survey of my constituents on the subject of welfare reform, and I submitted the findings to the consultation. I have also met disability groups across Swansea and disabled constituents to hear their concerns. The problems that I have found to be the most prevalent in Gower are the incompetence of Capita and the inconsistencies of Department for Work and Pensions decision makers. That is why I genuinely welcome the announcement of the Timms review, but what reassurances can the Secretary of State give that the review will address this matter and give people confidence in the decision-making process?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause. New clause 2, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 7 Abolition of non-crime hate incidents “(1) Non-crime hate incidents as a special category of incident to be recognised by police authorities are abolished. Reporting, recording and investigation of such incidents should occur only in the limited circumstances provided for in this section. (2) For the purposes of Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR, section 35 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the Act”) and Article 8 of the Law Enforcement Directive, the processing of relevant data by a police authority is unlawful. (3) In this section, “relevant data” means personal data relating to the conduct or alleged of a data subject which is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct and which has been perceived by another person to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards one or more persons who have or who are or have been perceived to have one or more relevant characteristics and with that hostility or prejudice arising due to that or the perception of those protected characteristics. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the following are relevant characteristics— (a) race, (b) religion, (c) sexual orientation, (d) disability, (e) transgender identity. (5) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the processing of relevant data— (a) pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution, (b) for the purposes of the internal administrative functions of the police authority. (6) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the retention of a record (a “non-crime perception record”) of relevant data where a police officer (the “certifying officer”) of the rank of inspector or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future. (7) Where a certifying officer certifies the retention of a non-crime perception record pursuant to subsection (6)— (a) the certifying officer must include in the record a description of the future criminal conduct they have in mind and the reasons they believe that the retention of the record may assist in its detection or prevention, (b) the relevant data which may be retained as part of the record may be no more than the certifying officer believes is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct, (c) a copy of the record must be expeditiously provided to the data subject unless an officer of the of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that— (i) the provision of the record to the data subject may interfere in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct, or (ii) the officer is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide a copy of the record to the data subject. (8) If the data subject objects to the retention of the non-crime perception record, subsection (6) does not apply unless a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future. (9) No police authority or police officer can be held under any circumstances to be under any duty to undertake the retention of any relevant data. (10) After subsection 113B(3) of the Police Act 1997 insert— “(3A) An enhanced criminal record certificate must not give the details of a relevant matter to the extent that doing so would result in the disclosure of relevant data as defined in section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.” (11) For subsection 39A(3) of the Police Act 1996 substitute— “(3) No part of any Code of Practice issued by the College of Policing may be in a form which could be issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 60 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.” (12) Section 60 the 2022 Act is to be amended as follows— (a) the cross heading to be changed to “Non-crime perception records”, (b) the section heading to be changed to “Code of practice relating to non-crime perception records”, (c) in subsection (1) leave out from “by” to the end of the subsection and insert “of relevant data”, (d) omit subsection (2), (e) in subsection (3)(a), leave out “personal data relating to a hate incident” and insert “relevant data”, (f) in subsections (3)(b), (c), (d) and (e), for “such personal data” substitute “relevant data”, (g) in subsection (4)(a), for “personal data” substitute “relevant data”, (h) in subsection (4)(b), leave out “personal data relating to the alleged perpetrator of a hate incident” and insert “relevant data relating to the alleged perpetrator”, (i) in subsection (7), at end, insert “relevant data” has the meaning given by section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025”. (13) Any code of practice previously issued under section 60 of the 2022 Act is deemed to be withdrawn. (14) Within three months of the commencement of each calendar year, each police authority which is retaining non-crime perception records must— (a) undertake a review of the relevant data by an independent person to ensure that any retention of such records is in compliance with the provisions of this section. (b) publish a report in respect of the review prepared by the independent person including setting— (i) the total number of non-crime perception records retained by the police authority; (ii) the total number of data subject to which those records relate; and (iii) the equivalent numbers of those records added in the previous year. (15) In this section— (a) “a police authority” means— (i) a person specified or described in paragraphs 5 to 17 of Schedule 7 of the Act, (ii) a person acting under the authority of such a person, (b) the terms “data subject”, “processing” and “the UK GDPR” have the same meanings as under section 3 of the Act, (c) “the Law Enforcement Directive” means the Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament, (d) “the 2022 Act” means the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”— ( Matt Vickers.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to say that there is excellent practice in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is looking at that. He may be interested in that.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have stood on a manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and I know that colleagues on the Front Bench take that extremely seriously. There are significant measures in this Bill on intimate image abuse, stalking, spiking and the sexual exploitation of children. I know they mark only the beginning of the Government’s mission to tackle those shameful crimes. As a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation perpetrated by grooming gangs rightly gets under way, we must now also confront the adult sexual exploitation being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites and men who pay for sex, both of which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity. Laws against the commercial sexual exploitation of adults in this country are outdated, unjust and totally ineffective. In fact, our current legal framework creates a conducive context for commercial sexual exploitation—a failing that overwhelmingly affects women. Pimping websites, which function as massive online brothels, operate openly and freely, supercharging the sex trafficking trade by making it easier and quicker for exploiters to advertise their victims. Those online mega-brothels make millions of pounds every year by advertising thousands of vulnerable women from across the world for prostitution in the UK. Sadly, our legislation allows that. Men who pay for sex, so often left out of conversations on prostitution and sex trafficking but who are the beating heart of such a brutal trade, abuse with impunity. Their demand and their money drives the sex trafficking trade, yet we do very little to deter them. Let us therefore start that process today by making it crystal clear as a Parliament that it is not possible to buy sexual consent. Giving someone money, accommodation, goods or services in exchange for sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse; it is never acceptable.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and I obviously do not look at this through the same lens. For me, it is prostitution and not sex work, and we need to see some more examples of that being used. We currently have a situation where sex buyers enjoy near-total impunity while the vulnerable women they exploit can face criminal sanctions if they solicit on the street. The state hands out fines to women in a self-defeating effort to stop them soliciting on the street, ignoring the question of where those women are most likely to earn the money to pay their fine. Sanctioning victims of sexual exploitation is counterproductive and a barrier to seeking help and exiting this ruthless trade. That is why I have tabled amendments new clauses 2, 3 and 4. New clause 2 would make it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person online and offline, thereby outlawing dangerous pimping websites that are fuelling demand and facilitating sex trafficking. New clauses 3 and 4 would together shift the burden of criminality off victims of sexual exploitation and on to perpetrators. New clause 3 would make it a criminal offence to pay for sex, sending a clear message to boys that that is not an acceptable way to treat women and an equally clear message to men who are considering paying for sex that they face prosecution. We know from research with UK sex buyers that this would be an effective deterrent. Over half of 1,200 sex buyers questioned in one study said that they would definitely, probably or possibly change their behaviour if a law were introduced that made it a crime to pay for sex. New clause 4 would repeal sanctions against victims of sexual exploitation who solicit on the street to remove that barrier to women exiting prostitution and rebuilding their lives. It is also widely agreed that the expunging of criminal records of section 1 offences is necessary to end the unjust stigmatisation that these women continue to experience. That is why I have also tabled new clause 19 to introduce such a mechanism. The Home Affairs Committee has recommended that “the Home Office change existing legislation so that soliciting is no longer an offence”, and “legislate for the deletion of previous convictions and cautions for prostitution from the record of sex workers by amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.” For most of these women, their record of convictions is a record of their exploitation and abuse, and they live in fear of having to disclose that history when applying for jobs or volunteering. Decriminalising section 1 offences and allowing for the expunging of those historical convictions would allow those women to finally be free of the record of their abuse and the stigma they have endured for decades. My amendments would usher in a legal framework that recognises that prostitution is violence against women, and the only way to end this violence is to deter the perpetrators and profiteers. I am delighted, then, that more than 50 hon. Members have signed new clauses 2 to 4. I particularly thank members of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, which I chair, for their support. The amendments are informed and supported by survivors and best practice frontline support services such as NIA, Kairos Women Working Together, and Women@TheWell. I note that, unsurprisingly, some of my proposals are hated by pimping websites, one of which, Vivastreet, emailed its allies, urging them to mobilise against my amendments. A recent Sky News investigation found that over half of the 14,000 prostitution adverts on Vivastreet displayed a phone number linked to another advert on the site, which is a key red flag for organised sexual exploitation. I therefore find it reassuring that those prostitution pedlars are unnerved by my proposals. I want to address a myth promoted by defenders of pimping websites that shutting down these sites will make no difference to the scale of sexual exploitation taking place and will, instead, simply drive it all into the dark web and make it harder to identify. That is patently nonsense, lacking in logic and evidence. The dark web carries major disadvantages for both traffickers and sex buyers. It would require significant technical expertise to post, as well as locate and access, prostitution adverts on the dark web, thereby substantially restricting the pool of exploiters able to engage in this crime. There is also no evidence that such a shift has taken place in jurisdictions that have outlawed pimping websites. The reality is that police simply cannot keep up with the scale of sexual exploitation taking place via pimping websites on the open web. Another myth I want to address was all too visible in the written submissions opposing my amendments submitted to the Public Bill Committee. Every single one of the organisations who argued that pimping websites should be allowed to operate described prostitution as work—as “sex work”. The idea that paying someone to perform sex acts is an ordinary consumer activity—that ordering a woman online to perform a blow job is the equivalent of ordering a cappuccino—is a pernicious and harmful myth. Prostitution is violence against women. Let us legislate to put pimps and traffickers out of business. We must protect individuals from exploitation today, but also address the historical criminalisation of victims and abuse. I thank Members on the Front Bench for their engagement on this issue and I look forward to working with them very closely.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and for the recognition that, while our voices and opinions differ across the House, we have respect for each other. I do not see this as a discussion about the Abortion Act or raising any issue relating to it, because this is the Crime and Policing Bill, and the new clause is only about ensuring that vulnerable women in those situations have the right help and support. That is the whole purpose of it; it is not about the issues that he would like to discuss now.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member will know that the Abortion Act is not going to be amended. New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. I have said it before, and I will say it again: just what public interest is being served in the cases I have described? This is not justice; it is cruelty, and it has to end. Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations, and building on years of work by Dame Diana Johnson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham—

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my friend the hon. Member for his intervention, and I heard him make that point in an earlier intervention on the Minister. The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now. There is no way that these women should be facing what they are facing. Whether or not we agree on this issue, and this is why I have not supported new clause 20, a longer debate on this issue is needed. However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know of any woman who has had an abortion, at any stage, and taken it lightly. Any abortion at any stage of your pregnancy is a life-changing experience. That is why I do not take this lightly. That is why, whether it is six weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks or whatever, and whether it is in term or out of term, that experience of child loss, whether it is planned or not, stays with a woman for the rest of her life. I do not take this easily, standing up here with the abuse we have had outside this Chamber. This is a serious issue and these are the women who need the help. They need that help and they need it now. We cannot continue in this way. This very simple amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would take the women out of that situation, and that is what I am seeking to achieve.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day. My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Wow. I would like to know if the hon. Member actually knows of any woman who would put themselves in that situation if there was not coercion or control of some kind. Obviously, a lot of research and conversations have been going on for years on this issue. I understand that people across the House have deeply held religious views—indeed, I was brought up a Catholic. My issue, from what I have been told, is this: how would that woman go about it? If it was by taking abortion pills, she would have a baby. Painting a picture of killing an unborn child in that way does not help to serve what we are doing in this place. We need to protect the women. [ Interruption. ] I need to make progress. In the meantime, doctors, nurses, midwives, medical bodies, abortion providers and parliamentarians have come together to try to end the criminal prosecution of women on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. This is a specific and urgent problem, and one that is simple to fix. New clause 1 is the only amendment that would protect women currently at risk of prosecution and protect abortion services. That is why it has the explicit backing of every abortion provider and every organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing also endorse it. Numerous violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England and Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1. The public overwhelmingly support this change too. I implore colleagues not to lose sight of the moral imperative here: namely, vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is urgent. We know that multiple women are still in the system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this in a simple and secure manner. This is the right change at the right time, so I implore colleagues who want to protect women and abortion services to vote for new clause 1. Let us ensure that not a single desperate woman is ever again subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments of their lives. There must be no more Lauras. There must be no more Nicola Packers.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because the truth is that we have to flip this around. No woman, or anybody, is deterred. This is not a deterrent. The criminal law does not work as a deterrent. These women are desperate and they need help. They may be coerced, or it could be just a stillbirth—it could be—but prosecution is not going to help the woman at any point.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are not here to amend the Abortion Act. This is not a Backbench Business debate. We are here to debate an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. I hope that the hon. Lady stands corrected.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly five years ago, having suffered a rare complication in her abortion treatment, Nicola Packer lay down in shock, having just delivered a foetus at home. Later arriving at hospital, bleeding and utterly traumatised, she had no idea that her ordeal was about to get profoundly worse and that her life would be torn apart. Recovering from surgery, Nicola was taken from her hospital bed by uniformed police officers in a police van and arrested for illegal abortion offences. In custody, her computers and phone were seized, and she was denied timely access to vital anti-clotting medication. What followed was a four-and-a-half year pursuit by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that completely overshadowed Nicola’s life, culminating in her being forced to endure the indignity and turmoil of a trial. She spent every penny she had funding her defence. The most private details of her life were publicly aired, and she had to relive the trauma in front of a jury—all that ultimately to be cleared and found not guilty. Nicola’s story is deplorable, but there are many others. Laura, a young mother and university student, was criminalised for an abortion forced on her by an abusive partner. He coerced her into taking abortion pills bought illegally online, rather than going to a doctor. Laura describes his violent reaction to her pregnancy: “he grabbed hold of me, pushed me against the wall, was just screaming in my face…pulling my hair and banging my head off the wall”. Laura nearly died from blood loss as a result of the illicit medication he had coerced her into taking. When she was arrested, her partner threatened to kill her if she told anyone of his involvement. Laura was jailed for two years; the partner was never investigated by the police. Another woman called an ambulance moments after giving birth prematurely, but instead of help, seven police officers arrived and searched her bins. Meanwhile, she tried to resuscitate her baby unassisted, who was still attached to her by the umbilical cord. While the baby was in intensive care, she was denied contact; she had to express breast milk and pass it through a door. She tested negative for abortion medication—she had never taken it. Rather, she had gone into spontaneous labour, as she had previously with her other children. She remained under investigation for a year. One of my constituents discovered that she was pregnant at seven months—she had no symptoms. She was told that she was too late for an abortion. She had seen reports of women being investigated after miscarriages or stillbirths based on their having previously been to an abortion clinic. She spent the rest of her pregnancy terrified that she would lose the baby and be accused of breaking the law. When labour began, she even delayed seeking medical help out of fear.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment, but I will later. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now. There has been a cacophony of misinformation regarding new clause 1, so let us be clear: if it passes, it would still be illegal for medical professionals to provide abortions after 24 weeks, but women would no longer face prosecution. Nearly 99% of abortions happen prior to 20 weeks, and those needing later care often face extreme circumstances such as abuse, trafficking or serious foetal anomalies. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 or more weeks pregnant and suddenly decides to end her own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic, with no medical support, but some women in desperate circumstances make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. New clause 1 is about recognising that such women need care and support, not criminalisation. As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1. I have profound concerns about new clause 106, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which would remove the ability of women to have a consultation either on the phone or via electronic means, rowing back on the progress made in 2022 and again requiring women to attend a face-to-face appointment before accessing care. Introduced in 2020, telemedical abortion care represented a revolution for women and access to abortion care in this country. We led the world: evidence gathered in the UK helped women in some of the most restrictive jurisdictions, including the United States, to access abortion remotely. Here, the largest study on abortion care in the world found that telemedicine was safe and effective, and reduced waiting times. The fact is that half the women accessing abortion in England and Wales now use telemedical care. Given the increases in demand for care since the pandemic, there simply is not the capacity in the NHS or clinics to force these women to attend face-to-face consultations. New clause 106 would have a devastating effect on abortion access in this country, delaying or denying care for women with no clinical evidence to support it. What concerns me most about the new clause, however, is the claim that making abortion harder to access will help women in abusive relationships. Let me quote from a briefing provided by anti-violence against women and girls groups including End Violence Against Women, Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid, Solace Women’s Aid and Karma Nirvana, which contacted Members before the vote in 2022. They said: “the argument that telemedicine facilitates reproductive coercion originates with anti-abortion groups, not anti-VAWG groups. The priority for such groups is restricting abortion access, not addressing coercion and abuse. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does not solve domestic abuse.” I could not agree more. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who tabled new clause 20, had a terrible experience today: she was unable to walk into Parliament because of the abuse that she was receiving outside and the pictures that were being shown. That was unforgivable, and I want to extend the hand of friendship to her and make it clear that we are not in this place to take such abuse. While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion, new clause 20 is much broader in terms of the scope of its proposed change to the well-established legal framework that underpins the provision of abortion services. While I entirely agree with her that abortion law needs wider reform, the sector has emphasised its concern about new clause 20 and the ramifications that it poses for the ongoing provision of abortion services in England and Wales. The current settlement, while complex, ensures that abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women and girls, and I think that those in the sector should be listened to, as experts who function within it to provide more than 250,000 abortions every year. More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed, but the right way to do that is through a future Bill, with considerable collaboration between providers, medical bodies and parliamentarians working together to secure the changes that are needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would require.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid the hon. Member is not stating what my new clause would actually do. It takes women out of the criminal justice system, and this is the Crime and Policing Bill.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Devolution: Crown Estate · Hansard source

  More

  Devolving the Crown Estate sounds like such a wonderful idea, but the truth is that it really is not, and the continued lobbying and loud chat about devolving the Crown Estate is jeopardising future investment in Wales, and jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  This is not a competition between my hon. Friend and me—we both have the same aim—but it is interesting that more than 115 MPs have signed new clause 1, and it has been endorsed by the whole industry. Everyone has signed up to it. Has my hon. Friend had conversations with them about why they have not signed up to her new clause?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this very important petitions debate. I thank the petitioner, Gemma, and everyone who signed the petition. It is a real privilege to speak in this timely debate. Abortion remains a criminal offence in England and Wales under a law written in 1861. That means that in those two jurisdictions, still, in 2025, women can be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for ending their own pregnancies. That is not a theoretical consequence of a law passed before women even had the right to vote; it is happening now at an increasing rate. Since 2020, around 100 women have been criminally investigated, six have faced court and one has been sent to prison on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. Those investigations are dehumanising and prolonged, and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable: victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18, and many women who have suffered miscarriage, stillbirth or who have given birth prematurely. They are victims but they are treated as suspects and subjected to invasive investigations that inflict profound long-term harm. Because of this law, women are being dragged through police cells after having given birth and forced to wait up to six years for a court date. Mothers are being torn from their existing children and new babies—sometimes for years. Some are still fighting to get them back. Women have received death threats. They have self-harmed, been denied access to the mental and physical health care they require following their trauma and been forced to spend every single penny that they and their families have earned just to defend themselves. Just what public interest is that serving? It is not justice; it is cruelty. Yet now, under new guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, officers are being told that they can seize women’s phones and search their messages, internet history and even health apps if they are suspected of ending a pregnancy outside of the law. It is state-sanctioned surveillance, and victims are being treated like criminals. That is why the law has to change. I have tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill to put an end to the prosecution of women for ending their own pregnancies. It is backed by 115 cross-party MPs and 50 sector organisations. My new clause simply disapplies the criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Despite what those on the opposing side scaremonger, my new clause is narrow and targeted. It changes absolutely nothing about the provision of abortion services and the conditions laid out in the Abortion Act 1967, including the time limit and the need to meet certain criteria and to obtain the approval and signatures of two doctors. It maintains existing punishments for both medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the law. Instead, new clause 1 simply removes the threat of criminal liability from women who end their own pregnancies, enabling them to get the care and support that they need. As has been mentioned, it would bring us into line with Northern Ireland, Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic. But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution. As hon. Members will be aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill in this regard. She and I share the same interests and overarching objective—to remove women from the criminal law related to abortion—but her new clause is markedly broader in terms of the scope of change proposed to the long-standing settlement that provides for abortion services. This framework is complex. Hard-won battles have cemented women’s access to abortion in this country into primary legislation. Parliament has, up to now, remained resistant to changes that constitute a rollback. I have concerns about overturning that entire framework at the current time and replacing it with a mechanism that would leave power in the hands of a single Minister. Does the Minister agree that such powers would mark a sea change in the long-standing, underlying framework that provides for abortion in England and Wales? The Abortion Act 1967 is also related to the underlying criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. Repealing that law in its entirety would bring the continued practical operation and enforcement of the Act into question. Will the Minister comment on the likelihood of that leaving a regulatory gap? We are lucky enough to live somewhere where abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women—and rightly so. We must ensure that we preserve that, particularly given the current political climate in the world. I would also expect any proposed changes on this subject to be consulted on and to include input from the sector, the essential work of which is underpinned by the current settlement. I am staunchly pro-choice, and as much as I believe that future reforms on abortion provision are needed, we must not lose sight of the current moral imperative and its urgency: vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. That can be stopped by disapplying the criminal law on abortion in relation to women. New clause 1 has the explicit backing of every single organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. It is also supported by the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Midwives, General Practitioners, Psychiatrists, and Nursing. Countless groups on violence against women and girls, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England & Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1. It is also supported by today’s petitioner—thank you, Gemma. The public supports this change. This petition, signed by more than 103,000 people, is a stark reinforcement of that fact. It is time to ensure that those desperate women who are failed by the law or access to abortion can safely turn to healthcare in their time of need—often the worst moments of their lives—without fear of being turned in to the police by their own doctors. Those women deserve the care and compassion that they need. We have spoken today of the case of Nicola Packer. There must be no more Nicola Packers.

• 8 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As the chair of the medicinal cannabis under prescription all-party parliamentary group, I have worked closely with Hannah Deacon, the mother of Alfie Dingley, over the past eight years. This woman has changed the law, but, sadly, she lost her fight with cancer the day before yesterday. Will the Leader of the House pay tribute to her and send condolences to her family, as the work that she has done has changed the lives of so many young children living with epilepsy? Will she join me and Hannah’s friends who are here in the House today? This woman was incredible, and I just wanted everybody across this House who has had the opportunity to work with her to know that, and to stand in solidarity and send their love to the family—to Drew, Alfie and little Anni.