Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Commons Chamber
Commons Chamber
Tuesday 17th June 2025
(began 1 month ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
Private business
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The clock The clock will The clock will now The clock will now proceed The clock will now proceed to
read the bills set out for today.
reading.
11:35
Oral questions: Health and Social Care
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tuesday, June 24. We now come to questions for the Secretary of State
11:35
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for Health and Social Care. Question number one, Mr Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question number one, Mr Speaker. The member sends her apologies
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The member sends her apologies because due to a family issue she is not here and is very much in our thoughts today. I will take
thoughts today. I will take questions one and 15 together. Thanks to decisions taken by the
Chancellor in the spending review it will increase to £14.6 billion by the end of the Spending Review period and this will deliver the
largest ever Health capital budget in NHS history. Over £5 billion will
be invested to addressed the most serious and critical infrastructure
risks, rebuilding the damage done by the previous government.
11:35
Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The announcement of billion
pounds for my local hospital is a drop in the ocean. -- £5 million.
Patients and staff deserve safe and modern facilities and not a
patchwork of repairs. Can I ask the Secretary of State to meet with me
and see first-hand what the scale of
the challenge is?
11:36
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the honourable member for the question and I appreciate the challenges that she describes. I have met myself with the trust and myself and the
Minister for Health have met with local MPs about the challenges. The
investigation by Lord Darzi found at
£30 billion black hole left by the Conservatives and we are reversing
that and there will be £4.1 million
for the hospital you refer to and that is in addition to the money included for maintenance backlogs.
It will take time but I brick, Labour is rebuilding the NHS.
11:37
Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Imperial College NHS Trust has the highest repair backlog in
the country and study support is very welcome but, to solve this
problem, we need a new St Mary's. Will the Secretary of State join me
in praising the work of the new 3- year task force at Saint Marys which
aims for full planning consent and to explore different financing models to get the hospital built.
11:37
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I thank my honourable friend
for the work that he and the Member for the cities of London and
Westminster are living in partnership with the trust and the
council to ensure the people of his constituency have the hospital that they deserve. I then was, it will be
the most complicated scheme in the New Hospitals Programme but that is
no excuse for the years of delay the scheme has phased out it has the biggest repair backlog in the
country.
So he is right to make sure this is not put into the 'to difficult' pile again and we are
doing everything we can to expedite the process.
11:38
Q2. What steps he is taking to support rural pharmacies. (904623)
-
Copy Link
I recently visited my local pharmacy and the owner
highlighted... Question number two, excuse me. excuse me.
11:38
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
With your permission, I will take question two together with question
10. After years of underfunding, the government agreed a record uplift of
£3.1 billion for 2025-26 four the
pharmacy sector. The access scheme
provides and there are fewer
Legislation passed in the other
place today will allow pharmacies to streamline dispensing and reform must be married with investment. must be married with investment.
11:39
Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I recently visited the local pharmacy and the owner highlighted
challenges facing small rural pharmacies and the current model
pharmacies and the current model
does not take into account law -- law footfall. If a pharmacy closes in a real talent can cause huge
issues, especially where there is little public transport. Will the
Government consider introducing real exceptions or adjusting funding threshold to keep community
pharmacies open? pharmacies open?
11:39
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank her for the question. The
pharmacy sector is facing huge challenges after massive cuts over the last 14 years. We are beginning to rebuild. There are particular
challenges for rural pharmacies, she is right. We are looking for comprehensive reform around better
use of technology and we will have
hub and spoke dispensing and a range of measures which will allow better remote dispensing for rural
pharmacies.
11:40
Charlotte Cane MP (Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I have visited pharmacies across
my constituency. They are all struggling to provide a service are
all very keen to take on new services that the NHS is suggesting.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring rural and community pharmacies are
properly staffed and equipped to deliver community services like
diabetes testing and weight management treatment so that patients are not left behind because
of where they live?
11:40
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She is right that pharmacies will
play a central role in the shift from hospital to community that we will put at the heart of the 10-year
plan. I important part of that is Pharmacy First ducts they take up is not where we would like it and we are trying to raise awareness of
Pharmacy First and free the pharmacists to operate at the top of
the licence and part of it is about the dispensing side and then the hub and spoke legislation will be important in that context.
11:41
Steve Yemm MP (Mansfield, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister spoke many times before about the importance of
shifting from hospital to community. I visited many local pharmacies and met with the chair of the community
pharmacy in Nottinghamshire and I have seen firsthand the important
work that they do supporting communities. As such, I wonder if he agrees that community pharmacies
have a key role to play in the shift and can help to pressures of GPs?
11:42
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He is right. I commend him for his work in his constituency and
his work in his constituency and
with pharmacies in his constituency. What we want to see is a culture change because the interface between general practice and community pharmacy is not where it should be.
We believe pharmacists have more to offer but that requires better
digital interface and better
information sharing and Single Patient Record and that vehicle will
be important for delivering reforms.
be important for delivering reforms.
11:42
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I am pleased to hear the Minister speak of Pharmacy First which was
brought forward by the last government and welcomed by communities and pharmacists. Why has
the government decided to cap the
number of consultations that the pharmacist can do?
11:42
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Part of this is the financial
arrangement for Pharmacy First.
Those must be at a level which incentivises pharmacies to do Pharmacy First. The weird was set up previously, the incentives were not working and that is a reason why the
take-up has not been there needs to
Right so it incentivises the system. Right so it incentivises the system.
11:43
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Part of the problem is once they
hit it, they are not paid £17 per consultations so patients will either be turned away or the pharmacist takes the head and pays
for it themselves. This will destroy the system and create extra cost because patients turned away turn up
in other areas such as GPs. How does that fit with the push from Lord
Darzi towards community services? Darzi towards community services?
11:44
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
You will have seen and I am sure will welcome the record uplift we
are putting into the sector of £3.1 billion and that comes after years
of neglect from the party opposite. A big part of this is about ensuring the shift from hospital to community and we want pharmacist to take
pressure off primary care. We have
got to make Pharmacy First work effectively which means getting the
allocation of funding correct and working at it in terms of performance and now we have the Spending Review and the package
going forward, that is what we will deliver.
deliver.
11:44
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Increasing resilience of the UK medical supply chain is a key
priority and admit that the team regularly to routinely take action to mitigate supply issues including
requesting additional stock, identifying global sources, and
management device. There are no plans for a specific review but the Department constantly works to take further action to reduce the impact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the shortages including targeted winter monitoring. Having worked in community
11:45
Sadik Al-Hassan MP (North Somerset, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Having worked in community pharmacies for nearly 20 years, I've
pharmacies for nearly 20 years, I've witnessed the pain that medicine shortages can cause for patients and loved ones firsthand. We'll be
Minister meet with me and other members of the all-party
Parliamentary Group for Pharmacy to discuss the inquiry into medicine
discuss the inquiry into medicine Share and I would like to thank him
Share and I would like to thank him for his commitment to pharmacy and
the work of APPG to understand the impacts on this issue.
I am planning to hear a Parliamentary event on this late in the autumn, and keen to this late in the autumn, and keen to work on APPG in making a success for all members.
11:46
Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Supply chain issues are just one of the many impacts that community pharmacists are facing at the
moment. My local pharmacy is also
facing the supply chain issues but it has also now been hammered with
National Insurance increases, which mean that in its long-term viability is really at stake, when all of these issues are taken together.
Could at the review the Minister is looking at action include all impacts on community pharmacies, which impact the long-term viability?
11:46
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The long-term viability of
pharmacies and the whole NHS was
under threat from him, his party opposite. Thanks to this government, it is being made for the future.
This is a serious issue all our constituents. We want to make it
work better and he was even the 10 year plan that we will make the NHS fit for his constituent and mine and everyone else in this country.
11:46
Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Community pharmacies in North Shropshire and across the country are struggling not only with supply
chain problems but also dispensing some of the medicines that are so
critical for our constituents. I was particularly concerned to read that
higher prices for US pharmaceuticals are on the table for the next stage of trade negotiations with Donald Trump and stop as an additional one
and 1/2 billion pounds it would cost both the NHS and our community
pharmacist year. Can the Minister outline the steps the Department is taking to ensure the NHS and the vital medicines apply we rely on are
not used as a bargaining chip in a trade deal with the highly unreliable US president?
11:47
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Honourable lady raises an important question about the
pharmaceuticals which is absolute
key to this country's growth mission and supporting all our constituents and the entire country. As we know, my friend the right honourable
member the Prime Minister is obvious the at the G7 at the moment. We have good relationships with America and
of course the Department is working very closely across government to make sure the sustainability of supply is therefore our constituents.
11:47
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Question number four.
questions four and nine together. The government inherited a ludicrous
situation, where patients could not get a GP appointment and GPs could not get a job. One of my first acts
was to cut redtape, to give practices flexibility to high GPs along with an extra £82 million
investment. Thanks to that combination of investment and reform, this government has recruited an additional 1,700 GPs to
the frontline since July. Exceeding our target of 1,000. We have
invested an extra £889 million into
general practice this year, taking action to bring back the family doctor.
We do not pretend to solve
all the problems that change has begun and the best is still to begun and the best is still to campus that --
11:48
Naushabah Khan MP (Gillingham and Rainham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the commitment to restoring doctors and the additional
recruitment of GPs nationwide. My constituency is yet to benefit from this. Concerns have been raised with me about the expansion of the Additional Roles Reimbursement
Scheme to include only newly qualified GPs, it may be too
restrictive. Having met with local GP partners who share this concern, will the Minister discuss how the scheme can better support areas like mine?
11:49
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm very grateful to my honourable friend for her question. We are investing an extra £900 million into general practice, reforming the GP contract to help
bring back the family doctor and end the 8am scramble. That contract reform included further changes to
make it easier to recruit GPs through the scheme. She will see
when we publish the 10 year plan to help shortly that general practice is at the heart of our proposals to build a neighbourhood health
service. I'm keen to work with her and GPs to make it further easier to
make sure the qualified GPs can get jobs and patients can get GP appointments.
I would be delighted to meet her.
11:49
Luke Murphy MP (Basingstoke, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
After 14 years at the Conservatives running down the frontline of the NHS, many people in
Basingstoke still struggle with access to their GP. One of the
issues raised time and time again by patients and GPs is the lack of investment. Capital investment in new provision to meet growing housing need. Gillingham medical
practice, for example, was built to serve just 8,000 patients, now
serves over 18,000 and is set to serve many thousands more in the
years to come.
Can the Secretary of State set out what more the government is doing, so that every patient in Basingstoke can see their
GP when they need to?
11:50
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My honourable friend is absolutely right and just as this
government is delivering record homebuilding, with a huge target to
build the homes that Britain needs, we also need to make sure they get the local services that they deserve
too. That is exactly what this Government has invested an extra £102 million this year to create additional clinical space, with over
1,000 GP practices, which will create new consultation rooms and make better use of existing space to
deliver more appointments.
I know she medical practice was one of the
practices put forward for funding, so I hope we will see that practice benefiting from this investment in
the near future as we rebuild our NHS.
11:51
Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The Government's additional roles reimbursement scheme led to just
three new GPs all my constituents in
Woking. It is a drop in the ocean. More needs to be done to deliver the
GP practices to new developments like that in south Wokingham. Why did Ministers support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning
and Infrastructure Bill which would have ensured that commitments to build GP surgeries in all new
housing developments were made legally binding? legally binding?
11:51
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am probably... Probably because being that prescriptive about every housing development was probably not
sensible, even if the thrust of what
he is describing is absolutely the right approach, which is as new housing development is built, we need to make sure the local infrastructure goes alongside it. I
take what he says about the numbers
of GPs and as I, we do not pretend to all of the problems in 11 months. With respect, there are three more
JPs than there before, I know
there's more to do, give me time, we we -- we will rebuild general practice for his constituents anyone else's.
11:52
Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Access to GPs in my constituency
of changes that is being undermined by the closure of the West Brom branch of Emsworth medical practice
at the end of this month. Patients now have to travel to Emsworth but this is a small rural village I'm
talking about and there's no public transport to get my elderly and vulnerable patients to that medical practice over the border. Will the
Secretary of State please meet with me to urgently discuss how we can protect this vital service in a
rural village in Chichester?
11:52
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I can well understand honourable members concern and her constituents
concern. Practice closures are hard on communities wherever they are that they hit disproportionately on
that they hit disproportionately on
rural communities and those that suffer with poor transport connectivity. I would urge in the
first instance raise the specific local issues with ICBs. Can I reassure her and other honourable
and right honourable members that the needs of rural, coastal, remote communities are very much in our mind and thinking and crucially, in
the 10 year plan, we are thinking about how we build genuine neighbourhood health services in all types of neighbourhood.
11:53
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Question number five.
from the meeting we had about this
last year. This Government is supporting local providers by recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers by the end of
this Parliament. We are also expanding NHS talking therapies and piloting six new 24 seven neighbourhood mental health centres,
including Hope Haven, serving Whitehaven and rural Copeland.
11:53
Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for his reply. This month the CQC found high
levels of staff vacancies in the already understaffed psychiatric intensive care unit and acute mental
health wards in South Cumbria, concluded, "This is putting patient safety at risk." And worryingly, 90 be in South Cumbria are making 142
million in additional cuts this year, with Northumbria making cuts also. In light of this, what is plan
to intervene and ensure mental health starting in Cumbria is increased to safe levels?
11:54
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for that and there is
no doubt that the NHS and
universities and others need to do more to get students, trainees and
qualified doctors and mental health specialist in places where the NHS and patients need them. We will publish a refreshed workforce plan
later this year to ensure the NHS has the right people in the right places to care for patients when they need it.
11:54
Chris Kane MP (Stirling and Strathallan, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The SNP has cut mental health services across Scotland, while
failing to recruit the necessary workforce in rural communities like those in Stirling and Strathallan.
What assessment has the department made of the devolved mismanagement of mental health services is
affecting outcomes for patients in rural Scotland?
11:55
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I can, if we were to make an assessment of the way in which the SNP has mismanaged its responsibilities in Scotland, we
will be here a very long time. So I'm not sure I can answer his question in the round. But I am sure
that colleagues from the SNP will be
welcoming the record investment that the UK government has made in Scotland. And I'm certainly looking forward to the improved results they forward to the improved results they will be delivering as a result.
Number six.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Spending Review announced increases in NHS spending alongside
increases in NHS spending alongside more money for adult social care. By investing index scanners, we can
investing index scanners, we can more rapidly treat conditions like osteoporosis, that particular effect elderly women. Our urgent and
emergency care plan prevents -- has
11:56
Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
technology for less admissions. Improved continuity of care, benefiting patients with long-term conditions. As the Secretary of State knows
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As the Secretary of State knows only too well, my borough of Hegering contains one of the highest
Hegering contains one of the highest numbers of elderly people in the
entire London read been -- London region. Queen's Hospital in Romford remains chronically underfunded,
overstretched and struggling to meet the growing healthcare needs of an ageing community. Will the Minister
commit today to the serious investment that Queen's Hospital so desperately required to ensure better health outcomes for older
people across Romford?
11:56
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for that question and I carefully note the fact that my
right honourable gentlemen, friend sitting next to me, has got an interest in this issue, so I'm going to tread very carefully in my
answer. I do understand that the honourable gentlemen has discussed this matter with my colleague, the Minister of State for health. The north-east London health and care
partnership ICBs is responsible for delivery implementation and funding decisions for local services. But
his representations I know have been very carefully noted today, not least by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Health.
the Secretary of State for Health.
11:57
Mr Toby Perkins MP (Chesterfield, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you. One of the most important things we can do to
support the health of the elderly is to ensure they are able to get to see their local doctor. I think it is great to hear the Health
Secretary talk about the improved access to appointments, we are seeing that in Chesterfield. It is also right to say it is literally
the first step back up the mountain.
This government has inherited a real crisis in general practice access. And it is physically difficult in the more deprived areas.
Can my
honourable friend tell me what more we can do to ensure that people are
able to get to see a GP and those practices that serve those most
deprived communities are able to get access to the extra GPs that they need?
11:58
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for that question. He
will know that when we came into government we inherited the absurd situation where the Additional Roles
Reimbursement Scheme was weighed down by redtape and it was not
actually possible to recruit GPs. We change that. We invested 82 million
extra and as a result, we have well over 1,000 more GPs on the frontline. But that is just the beginning. We have got a contract
reform, £889 million for additional investment in general practice.
We are moving forward with online
booking system, obligatory by 1 October. We have got much more work
to do around the interface, for
example with pharmacy, and we are working on hard with that. My honourable friend is right, the
first at the mountain has been taken. taken.
11:58
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you Mr deputy... Mr Speaker, I get in trouble now. Mr Speaker, last time we came...
Sorry,... Mr Speaker. Last time we
came to questions, I asked about delays to crucial medications in
A&E. The Secretary of State said he
was interested to hear more. But his office said he was delegated to administer and we have still not been offered a day, if I could
encourage him to look into that please. The U-turn on winter fuel will help the elderly stay warm and healthy this winter.
But another way
to help elderly people will be to protect them from respiratory virus. Will the government extend the vaccination to the over 80s? vaccination to the over 80s?
11:59
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank her for that question, did not quite catch the word she used... Virus, what is called? RSP,
sorry, yes. We are certainly looking
at increasing the coverage of the RSP vaccination. Mike RSV. I do not have the statistic the hand at the
moment, I would be happy to write on that point.
12:00
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Many of those on waiting list are elderly and have chronic conditions and rather than seeking substance at
regular intervals of making them relatively well, they often kept on
open appointed they can call when ill, this is efficient and responsive care. Is the Minister aware this is being stopped in some
areas to improve figures? I would like to quote him from a letter sent
to a patient, elderly patient. I regret I cannot keep him on my waiting list under the open appointment for treatment.
I have
explained the politics and where we are at. Then we refer to a GP each time is an expensive and a waste of
time. The Minister explain why doctors are being asked to make decisions for political reasons and
not clinical ones?
12:00
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I do not think any decisions are being made for political reasons.
Our medical and health staff are focused very much on doing the right thing from a clinical point of view. She raises an important point around
continuity of care. People constantly having to be re-referred
into the system, part of the reason for that is that it incompetence with which the previous government
managed our primary care system stop and so we have ended up with people being passed from pillar to post.
The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme not actually about having GPs
in the frontline that having other staff and people, so there's more friction in the system, poor continuity of care. This Government is going to bring back the family
doctor, that is the way to get our
doctor, that is the way to get our
12:01
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
With permission, I will take questions seven and 16 together. This government is delivering record investment in the NHS. That
investment was drawn from taxpayers
and we have a responsibility to every taxpayer in the land as well as patients to make sure that every
single penny is well spent. That is why the investment is matched with bold reform to get value for money
for every penny. NHS England will
cut spending and we have slashed on agency staff in terms of spending and all the savings are being reinvested into frontline care.
12:02
Mark Ferguson MP (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I know from speaking to my local NHS trust in Gateshead, the value
that they place on dragging them cost but they still face financial
pressure and key among that is related to the digital-capital gap and we are keen to get that down and
allow more people to have remote
12:03
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
access to the NHS. Will he meet with us to talk about how to tackle bad?
us to talk about how to tackle bad? There I would be delighted to. He is
There I would be delighted to. He is right that we must make sure the NHS is not just benefiting from but is at the forefront of the revolution taking place in digital services and
taking place in digital services and technology because it is key to driving productivity and financial stability. That is why at the
Spending Review the Chancellor announced extra spending and transformation.
Unlike predecessors,
transformation. Unlike predecessors, we will not read tech budgets. --
we will not read tech budgets. -- raid. We have announced, this month,
raid. We have announced, this month, modernisation of the NHS app which will save patients to hundred million pounds in stamps, envelopes,
12:03
Lillian Jones MP (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
million pounds in stamps, envelopes, letters. -- £200 million. In Scotland, there are more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In Scotland, there are more
quangos than MSPs and after four years and £30 million of cash down
years and £30 million of cash down the drain, the SNP scrapped plans for the flagship policy and that was seen as a significant setback for
seen as a significant setback for Scottish social care reform. I
Scottish social care reform. I wonder if my right honourable friend
12:04
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
wonder if my right honourable friend has advice for his Scottish counterpart on how to stop wasting the money of Scottish taxpayers?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the state of the NHS in Scotland, I suspect my counterpart needed to drown his sorrows. The
needed to drown his sorrows. The longer the SNP are in government, the longer the NHS in Scotland is on
the longer the NHS in Scotland is on the road to nowhere and they are on the fifth healthcare plan in four
the fifth healthcare plan in four years. It is not just the NHS in England that is receiving investment but the Scottish government, too, thanks to the Chancellor's
thanks to the Chancellor's decisions.
The same could be true in Scotland if the Scottish people will
Scotland if the Scottish people will boot out the SNP and elect the Labour candidates to deliver the
12:04
Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Labour candidates to deliver the change required. A good way to save money in the NHS is investing in palliative care
NHS is investing in palliative care and end-of-life care because it prevents the cost of it going into
the acute sector and ambulances.
Given the ICBs are supposed to commission palliative care, can the
secretary of state commit to a proper revenue funding model and also for minimum service specification for palliative care? specification for palliative care?
12:05
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I reassure the honourable member that and-of-Latakia features in the
that and-of-Latakia features in the
10-year plan for health. -- End-of- life-care. Also, we have the biggest
in the generation improvement for
hospices but they do rely on the generosity of donors and I'm keen to look at what we can do to encourage
investment working in partnership. The final thing I would say there is
the parties opposite welcome investment in the NHS and oppose the
means of raising it and they cannot have it both ways.
They either support investment and revenue raises or they have to be honest
that they will cut the NHS.
12:06
Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the most egregious examples placed in recent years was
the almost £10 billion spent on useless PPE during the pandemic.
When the Treasury eventually recover some of this money, will the
Secretary of State assured me Scottish taxpayers will benefit in the usual way, through the usual
channels?
12:06
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Fiscal decisions and spending is
a matter for the Chancellor. Let me reassure, firstly, the way in which the taxpayers of this country were
ripped off during a national emergency was a total disgrace. This government is determined to get our
money back and reinvest it into frontline services where it should always have been. Secondly, as long
as the iron is a Labour Government
in Westminster, Scotland will benefit from the investment it needs to sort out public services. It just needs a Labour Government in Scotland to spend the money
properly.
This government is committed to
This government is committed to fixing the NHS and reducing waiting
fixing the NHS and reducing waiting times in A&E and the new plan is backed by £400 million of investment
backed by £400 million of investment to deliver urgent treatment centres, mental health assessment, you
mental health assessment, you ambulances. We are reforming urgent and emergency care so more are
and emergency care so more are treated in their homes and that is better and will help unclog accident
and emergency services.
12:07
James Asser MP (West Ham and Beckton, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister has recently seen
the pressure A&E is under in my constituency and that's due to the US government and also capacity issues and further pressures will
come as we regenerate the area close
We look at infrastructure to look at the growth we've had and future
growth?
12:08
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I know that my honourable friend enjoyed your visit and I thank the staff for the work that they do
which benefits my constituents. We must make sure we are supporting
hospitals across the country to meet need and we are part of a wider ecosystem and those points were
powerfully made by the honourable member earlier. He is right to raise increasing demand pressures and we will shortly publish the 10-year
plan for health and I'm happy to report that there is £28 million to
improve buildings and estates.
improve buildings and estates.
12:08
Mr Louie French MP (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The government continues to claim it wishes to expand community diagnostic centres to speed up
scanning and treatment. I asked the Secretary of State for the government is cutting the available
revenue tariffs under the previous
government which is impacting financial viability and access for patients.
12:09
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the honourable gentleman
will find that since the government came to power, we have reduced NHS
waiting list size by £250 -- 250,000. The first time that within
this have fallen in April in 17
years. We are making progress, not literally work in the diagnostic centres. The honourable gentleman
has a brass neck to complain about the NHS under this government when
we are clearing up the mess that they left behind.
12:09
Q11. Whether his Department has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the ban on the use of sunbeds by under 18s. (904632)
-
Copy Link
Number 11, Mr Speaker.
12:10
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The 2010 act banned the use of commercial sunbeds for under 18 is the department has commissioned the
committee on aspects of radiation to review the impact including the effectiveness of the ban for under 18 is. 18 is.
12:10
Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
According to Cancer Research UK,
18% of skin cancer cases are
preventable. My constituent is leading a campaign alongside
Melanoma Focus to make improvements for people under 18 and to stop the
use of harmful products such as planning nasal sprays and
planning nasal sprays and
injections. -- tanning. UV exposure increases the risk of melanoma to 59%. Prevention is better than cure.
12:11
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Will be Minister met with us to discuss this ban and access to free
sunscreen at events? Stick I know someone diagnosed with early-stage melanoma. I never used sunbeds and
melanoma. I never used sunbeds and spent my youth taking holidays in
spent my youth taking holidays in Ireland so did not see much sun. As she says, this is an overwhelmingly
she says, this is an overwhelmingly preventable cancer with sunscreen,
preventable cancer with sunscreen, better shading, and it is up to organisers to support sunscreen at
that type of event.
She is right. I thank the honourable member for the
thank the honourable member for the support I was given during my diagnosis. I'm sure my minister will contact her and her constituent to
12:11
Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contact her and her constituent to highlight the prevention aspect of this disease. Until his recent death, my
constituent look Webster died with issues and he spent much of his
short life being moved among different care facilities and that
one of them he was abused. Will be Minister met with me to discuss improve safeguard for those living
with such conditions?
12:12
Q12. What steps he is taking to reduce waiting times for biopsy results. (904633)
-
Copy Link
Let's move on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question number 12. Thank you, Mr Speaker. More
12:12
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr Speaker. More patients are getting this technology in the NHS for testing as part of our approach to revolutionise cancer
our approach to revolutionise cancer care and were spending money on funding including for automation of
quality laboratories to increase productivity and we will also reduce
unnecessary weights and repeated tests. I thank the Minister for
response. One of my constituents noticed he had all that was drawing
and putting on his chest. -- a mole.
and putting on his chest.
-- a mole. Members of his family had died from skin cancer is he was concerned and
skin cancer is he was concerned and went to his GP and was referred to an integrated dermatology service. He was told he would get the results
He was told he would get the results in four weeks and it took 17. This is a personal concern to the Minister. Will she investigate what happened? happened?
He raises and awful case and has done that well on behalf of offers constituent and are targeting of
waiting lists includes diagnostics and that should not happen and I
will ensure he gets a response as quickly as possible.
Question number 13, please.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With permission, I will take 13 and 22 together. Reducing waiting times for cancer diagnosis remains a key priority and another government an extra 19,000 patients with cancer
an extra 19,000 patients with cancer diagnosed were looked at. This includes cancer 360 which is a
includes cancer 360 which is a digital intervention which brings patient data into a single platform and we are fast tracking cutting- edge interventions into practice.
edge interventions into practice. The forthcoming National Council plan will set out how we speed up
12:14
Mr Bayo Alaba MP (Southend East and Rochford, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
plan will set out how we speed up diagnosis even further. I thank the Minister for the answer. The government has recently invested in
a new state-of-the-art mission in Southend Hospital. -- New machine.
It will drastically improve cancer treatment and is the first of its kind. How will investment and the
Spending Review ensure the
investment is there where we needed? There I am pleased his constituents will benefit and emissions are game
changing and reduced the number of
visits for his constituents, are more reliable, giving more capacity to the system, but upper staff, left cancellation of appointments and we want to see more of this and we are
want to see more of this and we are delivering under the government.
We are reducing long waiting times and treating people more quickly. That was reinforced in the Spending Review last week and that is what his constituents deserve.
12:15
Paulette Hamilton MP (Birmingham Erdington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Early diagnoses of less-
survivable cancers is fatal if survival rates are to improve. What assessment has the Minister made
following the publication of the
APPG cancer survival report, looking at faster diagnosis? What steps is the department taking to deliver
12:15
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She is absolute right hope this issue, can I commend her work not only on APPG now leading the Select
Committee on behalf of the honourable member, the chair of the
select is doing great work. She is
also right to highlight again... It is a priority for the government to diagnose cancers earlier and
improved survival rate, really important that this group with rare cancers. The report will inform the development about National Cancer
Plan as we seek to improve through the cancer pathway.
12:16
Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Part of a successful cancer
Swift cancer treatment as well as with diagnosis. My constituent
Catherine was diagnosed last year with stage III breast-cancer, she had a mastectomy and went through chemotherapy. She was then meant to
begin a course of radiotherapy in December, as of May that still had not begun. What can the Department
do to ensure these unacceptable delays do not happen and lives can be saved?
12:16
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Again, as so many honourable
members across the House rightly highlight, the actual experience of people throughout the entire
pathway. We have already heard about the investment we are making in machines and also in staff, to make
sure exactly that people do not get that -- do not just get faster diagnosis that is so important but
also across the entire pathway. The majority of people on waiting list after diagnostics, that is exactly
why we are investing in more capital, investing in the staff to make sure the process is quicker,
better for patients.
If there are any particular issues about that she would like to write to me about I will obviously respond. will obviously respond.
12:17
Tom Gordon MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Every 70 minutes, someone in Yorkshire is told they have cancer.
Tomorrow I will be launching a report the Yorkshire cancer research based in my constituency. It was set out key recommendations. The
Minister me with us to talk about how we can convene this into National Cancer Plan?
12:17
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the way he is doing locally and with that group is absolutely essential. I will make
sure we do have a good response for him, whether meeting with me or my colleague.
12:17
Q14. What steps he is taking to shift care from hospitals into the community. (904635)
-
Copy Link
14 please.
12:17
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are getting the NHS back on
its feet. Making it fit for the future shifting care to the community. £889 million more for GPs. 1,700 additional frontline GPs.
700,000 extra urgent dental
appointed annually and a 19% uplift of the community pharmacy contract will stop looking to the future, our commitment to building a
neighbourhood health service is right at the heart of our 10 year plan. plan.
12:18
Laura Kyrke-Smith MP (Aylesbury, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am delighted by the government commitment to moving healthcare closer to the community, including
through the establishment of neighbourhood health centres. This is exactly what we need in Ellsbury and I'm pleased that all our key
healthcare providers, including NHS Trust and several GP practices, are already working together to better integrate their care, which is an
important step in the right direction. Can the Minister update me on his progress towards this
model of neighbourhood -based healthcare? And can he advise what more ales healthcare providers can
do to make sure my residents benefit from Government's work in this area?
12:18
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is really good to hear about the fantastic work that is going on in her constituency. We are working with systems to move to a
neighbourhood health model. By building on existing good practice, particularly around the development
of multidisciplinary teams. Aylesbury is an outstanding example of this. The head of the tenure helplines publication, local
communities can continue to make progress by utilising the neighbourhood health guidelines that were published back in January. --
10 year plan.
12:19
Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Dental patients with untreated
need end up in hospitals and in places like hidden in my constituency, we have seen more and
more dental practices moving away from the NHS. I have a constituent who took three years to get her
child the first checkup and that dental practice has now ceased to
look after dental NHS patients. She cannot get NHS treatment she deserves herself, even though she
had a child in Pedri. What is going to be in the 10 year plan that is going to change this and make sure everyone can get access to NHS dentistry going forward?
12:19
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He is right to point to the issue around children's dental health.
After we won the election in July, I obviously looked across my portfolio and it was pretty much a car crash in every aspect of the portfolio thanks to the incompetence of
previous governments. But perhaps
the most shocking statistic of all, the biggest reason that five to nine-year-old children in our
country are admitted to hospital is that their rotten teeth removed. That is a Dickensian state of affairs. -- Dickensian.
We are
working with the British medical Association to incentivise British
dentistry, do away with a pulse, me set up under glass government and
get dentistry back to where it needs to be.
12:20
Michelle Welsh MP (Sherwood Forest, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The same goes it takes a village
to raise a baby, meaning that it is those in our community that provide
families with vital support. Does the Minister agree with me we need
to invest in more community midwives to ensure families are properly supported through the whole pregnancy and after birth?
12:20
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank her for that really important question. The role
important question. The role
midwives play, alongside other Community Health Services like district nurses, has been chronically underfunded and
neglected over the last 14 years. The role of community healthcare, she will be pleased to know is front
and centre in our 10 year plan. I think she will be very interested and pleased with what she sees when
that 10 year plan is published.
12:21
Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
The Darzi report pointed out that
13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but
they cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said we cannot fix NHS until we fix social
care. It is nearly 6 months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission
but the cross-party talks cancelled and never rescheduled and the
commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk
about fixing social care? So that everyone gets the care they deserve.
12:21
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I have a corrector on something,
the commission is up and running. Baroness Casey has started the meetings, she had a roundtable just
a few weeks ago people with lived experience. So she is not correct on that point and I'm sure she will
want to correct the record. On the point around delayed discharge, she is absolutely right. We are
reforming the Better Care Fund to get much better interface between
hospitals and care and local authorities. That system and those relationships can and should work much better.
But there are very
pressing long-term challenges. We are very conscious of that and we
are working at pace with Baroness Casey to ensure that these reforms
are delivered.
12:22
Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
As we have just heard, it is widely acknowledged that the crisis
in social care is causing dangerously high occupancy rates in hospitals that leads to the horrors
of corridor care, the dreadful waiting... And is waiting times we
have seen and a knock-on effect in the community. When I was contacted
by a family of the terminally ill man in my constituency last month, I was reminded that not only is care often provided in the wrong place,
it is often not available at all.
So will the government bring forward the timeline for the horribly delayed Casey Review to report back?
Get it done this year and heed Liberal Democrat calls for cross- party talks, so we can agree on a long-term solution for the crisis?
12:23
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I just tackle this idea that we are not working at pace on these
issues? Unpaid carers uplift, from £151-£196, the biggest uplifting
carer's allowance since the 1970s when the policy was brought in. Disabled facilities Grant the hundreds of millions of pounds
uplift to their disabled facilities Grant. And groundbreaking legislation for Fair Pay Agreement
for care workers. These are just some of the immediate steps we have
taken. The first phase of the Casey Review will report next year.
And of course we continue to work closely
with Baroness Casey to deliver the reforms that are so desperately needed after 14 years of neglect, including of course a number of years where the Liberal Democrats
were in government.
12:24
Topical questions: Health and Social Care
-
Copy Link
Topicals.
12:24
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Question number one.
almost 1/4 of a million patients off waiting lists and for the first time
in 17 years, waiting lists were cut in the month of April. There's a
long way to go but this Government is finally putting the NHS on the road to recovery. Andrew our Plan
for Change, I have announced that the NHS will also be at the forefront of the revolution in life sciences. Through the NHS app, patients will be linked up with
relevant trials to booth our life sciences sector, -- boost our life sciences sector, -- boost our life sciences sector...
And great medicines of the future.
12:24
Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
It is nearly 4 years since Professor Chris Whitty published a striking report on helping coastal
communities. COVID inevitably delayed implementation, can I ask the Secretary of State to look at
the report again, deliver on the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations and ensure my constituents can access the health services that they need? services that they need?
12:25
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable gentlemen for his question and he is right to commend so Chris Whitty's report. We
have taken that into consideration as well as the wider consultation we did in preparation for our 10 year plan to help us that -- so Chris
Whitty. That will commit to tackling gross health inequalities that affect our country, particularly rural and coastal communities.
12:25
Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Will the Secretary of State join
me in welcoming recent NHS waiting list figures that show that
Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS
Trust has seen a fall of over 6,000 recent NHS waiting list figures that show that Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS Trust has seen a fall of over 6006 is Government into
office? Does he agree with me that progress like this shows a partnership with our hard-working NHS staff we can be the generation NHS staff we can be the generation that takes NHS and the worst crisis in its history to the NHS people deserve?
12:25
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am absolutely agree with my
honourable friend and it is thanks to the fact that his constituents sent him to this House of Commons that we have a Labour government that we have a Labour government able to deliver with him or his community. -- For his community.
12:26
Rt Hon Edward Argar MP (Melton and Syston, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May puzzle my best wishes to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State. In front of the health and social care Select Committee in January, NHS England then chief
financial officer set out that pretty much all the additional funding to the NHS last year would
be absorbed by pay rises, National Insurance contributions and ablation. What proportion of the latest additional funding will be
absorbed in the same way? absorbed in the same way?
12:26
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Firstly, I just do not buy the argument that investing in our staff is somehow not investing in the NHS.
Who on earth do they think provides the treatment, delivers the care,
organises the clinics and delivers the services? Even in this great new world of technology, the NHS will always be a people-based service and
I'm proud this is a Government that delivers. Stop we are also waging war on waste and that is how we can deliver their paper staff and
improve care for patients, if only they had done that when they have a they had done that when they have a chance.
-- Farepaying..
12:27
Rt Hon Edward Argar MP (Melton and Syston, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
You can answer that hopefully will get a more positive response to
this one. I recently had the privilege of meeting a doctor and her husband who set up the breast- cancer campaign that large numbers
of members across this House of all parties have backed. And which is
seeking £20 million over five years, a tiny sum in the context of the
overall NHS budget, to research breast-cancer, who Susan is currently battling, to improve
outcomes. Her immediate task is even simpler.
The Secretary of State to meet with her in person to discuss
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the campaign and its aims. He is a decent man, will he agree to do that? Can I thank the shadow Secretary
12:27
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question and even more importantly, thank the amazing
campaigners for what they are doing. This is probably the easiest question he's ever going to ask me, the answer is of course an emphatic
yes.
12:27
Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the main concerns I have about assisted dying is it should
never be easier to help someone die
than it should be to help them live. If passed, the existed buying bill
would make thousand -- the assisted dying bill would make thousands of
terminally ill people every eligible to end their lives in NHS was up that our health service have the money to fund this service as well money to fund this service as well as its priority brings a waiting list?
12:28
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I firstly thank my honourable friend the Minister for care for the
work he has done to support the House as it makes its deliberations on this important issue. Of course
the government is neutral, it is for the House to decide. There is not money allocated to set up the
service in the Bill at present. But it is for Members of this House and the other place, should the Bill
proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that is a decision that this Government will respect either way.
12:28
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The UK's desperately short of doctors but thousands of applicants
will be turned away due to a lack of training places. This is not a situation of the Minister is making
but he has now been imposed a year. Can he assure us that nobody, no union, no Treasury Minister will
stop him from doing what needs to be done and lifting the training cap?
12:29
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Of course I should just say for
the record its thanks to my friends at the Treasury that we are able to do so much to invest in our health
service, to put that record ahead of the Budget. And she raises a really serious issue. We are looking
carefully at what we can do to make sure that we get great people into
our health service and they can look forward to a great career. We are
not in the right place as a country now, we need to be in a better place, the 10 year plan set out ambitions work, we will be
publishing a new workforce plan later this year.
12:29
Daniel Francis MP (Bexleyheath and Crayford, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is now 16 months since the publication of the report and those
patients harmed by sodium valproate continue to await the outcome of the redress that the government will
provide them. Will the Minister... Will the Secretary of State please provide an update on when they can
expect announcement on redress that will be made available to them?
12:30
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for that question. The Government is carefully
considering the work by the Patient Safety Commissioner in her report that sets out the options for redress. It is a convex issue involving input from different
departments and we will provide further updates to the patient safety report soon. A complex issue. safety report soon. A complex issue.
12:30
Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
In Scotland, and in my own constituency, there is a real
significant shortage of health and social care, despite extensive efforts to advertise the recruitment
and to get people in. In parts of England and Wales and Northern
Ireland to. The rug has been pulled out from under that I changes to
immigration policy and visas... Will the Secretary of State commit to
pushing this harder in Cabinet to ensure we can have more geographic
ensure we can have more geographic
12:31
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am really proud of the contribution health and care workers
from overseas make across the country. If they left tomorrow, these services would collapse. I think there is overreliance on
overseas staff, contributing to
levels of net migration that are unsustainable. I have a
responsibility to help the Home Secretary bring the numbers down and
give opportunities for better pay and career progression for home- grown talent and that is what I will do.
12:31
Markus Campbell-Savours MP (Penrith and Solway, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I have received many emails
regarding poor service from pharmacies in my constituency and there are issues with opening times,
long queues, delays receiving vital
medication, low stock. Will the Government ensure the public gets
the best quality service from local pharmacies? No, I am sorry to hear
pharmacies? No, I am sorry to hear about the issues experienced by these issues and I understand my honourable friend has raised this
honourable friend has raised this issue with the North East and North
issue with the North East and North Cumbria ICB and I understand they are investigating concerns.
If he's not happy with the outcome, he should come back to me. The
should come back to me. The government is committed to supporting community pharmacy. After
a decade of underfunding in the Glen, have a record uplift of £3.1
billion for 25-26. billion for 25-26.
12:32
Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
He may be aware of the greater awareness of nicotine patches and this seems to be a gap in the bill
about tobacco and vapes that is going through and that this is part in the same way as other forms of tobacco and nicotine. tobacco and nicotine.
12:32
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Us the honourable gentleman
knows, that industry always finds a way and we must keep on top of it
and tackle the scourge of nicotine addiction. He has campaigned on the
issue and is right to raise this issue so let's look at what we can do to strengthen the bill as it goes through Parliament. through Parliament.
12:33
Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
What steps has he taken to enable
access to nonhormonal and nonsteroidal oral contraceptives?
nonsteroidal oral contraceptives? Speak these are emerging technology which will be subject to scrutiny
before being recommended. The government remains committed to ensuring women can access the preferred method. There is a range
preferred method. There is a range available including a nonhormonal nonsteroidal contraceptive device.
nonsteroidal contraceptive device.
12:33
Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
In Prime Minister's Questions, I raised the need for universal
national screening program for type 1 diabetes. Will the Secretary of State meet with me on there so it
can form part of the 10 year plan and look into issues like overtreatment?
12:34
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I was in the chamber to hear the question and we are led by clinical
question and we are led by clinical
advice with screening programs but I understand the case she is making and I will be delighted to ensure she gets a meeting with the relevant minister.
12:34
Mr Richard Quigley MP (Isle of Wight West, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In my constituency, the hospice
delivers outstanding care throughout the community but despite this the
ICB will cut their funding by £1.4
million and other hospices are getting funding increase. I'm deeply concerned this will affect the local health service. Will he meet with me
to discuss this funding and protect the care for my constituents?
12:34
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for that question and
we provided hospices with the record
funding and the ICBs are responsible for this including meeting the needs
of local populations. NHS England has published guidance to support
this and I would be happy to meet with my right honourable friend to discuss this further. discuss this further.
12:35
Adrian Ramsay MP (Waveney Valley, Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
The British dental Association published analysis showing the
proportion of NHS funding spent on dentistry, introduced by more than 50% under the Conservatives and did not account for inflation and amount
of the cost of £1 million. No wonder we have got dental deserts across
the country. Will the Secretary of
State ensure dentistry receives
State ensure dentistry receives share funding from the allocation in the Spending Review? There he is right to point to the neglect and
right to point to the neglect and incompetence of the last 14 years.
We are fighting to get it back to where it has to be and an important
where it has to be and an important first step is the 700,000 urgent appointments and the supervised toothbrushing programme but reform
toothbrushing programme but reform is needed alongside the investment which will come through the Spending Review. Review.
12:36
Ben Coleman MP (Chelsea and Fulham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
According to the Trussell Trust,
the impact of hunger and hardship is driving further government spending and so can my right honourable
friend say what role the department
This in my constituency and across the country? Three he is right to raise this important point and it
raise this important point and it shameful 45 million children in the UK live in poverty. We are developing an ambitious strategy and
we are taking issue. There is government work on free school meals, breakfast clubs, finding childcare, and the department is
childcare, and the department is investing £36 million in this and promoting a healthy diet through Healthy Start.
Healthy Start. Healthy Start.
12:37
Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Opticians are important to the community and when I speak to my
local Kia report, there are issues
with treating minor eye injuries, deemed too expensive. Will the
Minister meet with me to ensure we
have a fair system across the country and not a postcode?
12:37
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He is right to point to some
anomalies that we currently have in the Ikea system and there are
concerns around the role some aspects of the independent sector are playing, particularly around the rather lucrative nature of cataract
operations. I would be happy if you
could write to me to set out the issues and I guarantee he will get the response in due course.
12:37
Alice Macdonald MP (Norwich North, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
Infertility is a medical condition which affects one in six
couples in the UK but access to NHS treatment is a postcode lottery with less than 10% of ICBs offering the
recommended cycles of IVF. Does the Minister agree we have to enter the postcode lottery and meet with me
and campaigners to discuss ending it for good? for good?
12:38
Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In light of the pressures on the NHS, we have been looking at the admissions with regard to fertility services and fairness for all
couples and fertility guidelines are
being reviewed and this will be the clinical study for the future. I know she talks about this and we are
12:39
Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
There is the closure of the urgent
There is the closure of the urgent care centre in Maidenhead and it has been confirmed by the ICB they will not open against the will of the majority of residents. Will the
Minister meet with me and campaigners to see how we can get it
12:39
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
campaigners to see how we can get it back open after five years of closure? Three I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for the
honourable gentleman for the question and he could not have
fought harder to save the service as a constituency MP. We devolve this
sort of decision to ICBs in order to
sort of decision to ICBs in order to make the decisions closer to the committee with the conviction the decisions are better taken locally rather than being centralised in
Whitehall.
I understand his case but we must resist the temptation, having given them the freedom not to
meddle every time, to make decisions, even if they are controversial.
12:39
Will Stone MP (Swindon North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Will the Minister look into the
issues with the pain of hysteroscopy
to ensure medics are properly briefed and can plan accordingly? We
briefed and can plan accordingly? We are committed to improving the experience of gynaecological
experience of gynaecological procedures including hysteroscopies and we should include the option of local and general anaesthetic and
local and general anaesthetic and there will be further representations.
12:40
Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the ways in which the Secretary of State can reduce waiting lists is by turbocharging the private sector since January,
milling 500,000 people had been treated. Has that experience
elicited any learnings that the Secretary of State is able to take
into the wider reform agenda for the NHS? Stick the NHS always does better under Labour government.
12:40
Nesil Caliskan MP (Barking, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My community hospital has been
providing free antenatal services to
mothers for many years and women use the services to give birth and I was disappointed when I heard that the
service is likely to close. Many in my community, as you will imagine,
are concerned. They have been redirected to the hospital where the
CQC requires improvement. Women deserve a place in a safe clinical
environment. Will the ministers ensure that, in making sure there is
additional attention and resources provided to the hospital, so that they can improve standards.
My constituents are being redirected to
give there and they must be able to give birth in a safe clinical space.
12:41
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Making sure women are giving birth safely is the ultimate
priority and the lease that women
deserve. I understand the anxiety she has about reconfiguration and she is right to raise them with the ICB in the first instance and we are
happy to meet with them and the crucial thing is that these services are configured and delivered in a
way that prioritises the safety of women.
12:42
James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
In March, the Care Minister told me no decision can be taken on a new dental school at the University of
East Anglia until the setup is
known. And now we know it. Will he instruct the Office for Students to offer new training places for 2026?
12:42
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The spending review has been
published. The key is to secure
allocations within the overall financial situation and that will take a matter of weeks and I will be
happy once we have that clarity. happy once we have that clarity.
12:42
Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Between 2001 and 2011, there was
inequality in NHS allocations. We have seen budgets cut for people and
with the increase of funding to the NHS and the Spending Review, what
NHS and the Spending Review, what
will the -- Wendell Edrich 10-15% pretty much she is right to highlight funding to address the
highlight funding to address the imbalance. She will be happy with imbalance. She will be happy with where we are for the 10-year plan.
12:43
Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
People in east Devon have been told they must travel to Exeter for
audiology services that they previously received at the local
community hospital. What steps is the government taking to encourage new providers to install accessible
services?
12:43
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This has been running then this
morning and it will not be lost on ministers and as we are delivering
neighbourhood health services, we will make sure people can receive care closer to home, wherever they
live. I think that purity will be reflected in the 10-year plan for health.
health.
12:44
Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My residence, when they can get a GP appointment, are frustrated when sent halfway across the borough to a
different GP surgery to the one that they are registered with. Is this
something that we can address and is this part of our proposals?
GPs at the heart of neighbourhood services and we want care close to home. There are benefits to primary care working at scale and I do not
want to criticise them for that. The important thing is different courses for different horses.
We are more mobile and online and we would welcome that for others with
welcome that for others with continuity of care in the home being
continuity of care in the home being important and people must get the right care, in the right place, at right care, in the right place, at the right time. That is what we will deliver.
12:44
Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm grateful for the consideration that the Secretary of State has given to finding a more fair and effective way of
compensating those injured by the Covid vaccination but those profoundly affected by such injuries
are anxious for news. Can they give me and indeed them a progress report?
12:45
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I assure the right honourable
gentleman and his constituents I have met and other campaigners that
I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about dealing with this and other issues including
issues like the sodium scandal. He knows the complexities involved that I would be grateful for his advice
as a former Attorney-General. I do not have specific progress to report but I reassure him and campaigners
it has not gone off the boil and we
it has not gone off the boil and we
12:45
Claire Hazelgrove MP (Filton and Bradley Stoke, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The challenge of finding and keeping an NHS dentist is one raising time and again... I really
welcome the action the Labour government has done to introduce more than 90,000 emergency
appointments across our ICB area. What will the next step speed to make sure NHS dentistry is opened up to everybody?
12:46
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank her for her question and
her relentless campaigning on this issue. She is right that the 700,000 urgent dental appointments is a first step. We are looking to embed
that, so that goes forward in every year of this Parliament. But the broader issue is around contract
reform. There is no perfect contract system. The current one clearly is not working and we are looking at
options around... Payments... And getting a contract that actually works and brings dentist back into
the NHS.
12:46
Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The Secretary of State will know
that my local ICB, Beds, looter and Milton Keynes, is set to merge with
K Mr Chen Peterborough. It will have a population of about 3 million people. Given the difficulties we
have had securing a GP surgery, can the Secretary of State set out how super sizing this quango will help
rural mid Beds get the local healthcare it needs?
12:47
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I respectfully say this was part of the problem with Conservative thinking. They thought the answer to the NHS crisis was
more quangos and they merge the number of ICBs, they measured this,
not the waiting list. We are slashing bureaucracy and reinvesting into the frontline, not re- centralising, decentralising and cutting weightless, I record the party opposite not begin to touch.
party opposite not begin to touch.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A couple of weeks ago at my constituency surgery, through the tears, my constituent Amy explained how following a hip operation in
how following a hip operation in 2008, she suffered progressive nerve
12:47
-
Copy Link
2008, she suffered progressive nerve damage due to repeated failures in diagnosis, referral and treatment. Despite raising concerns for years, she was told her pain was common and
a nerve test in 2015 confirmed damage and further tests last year showed a significant deterioration.
After 17 years, she has only now been offered surgery. All Amy wants to know is what steps are being taken to ensure that no other
patient is left permanently disabled due to such prolonged and systemic failure?
12:48
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Order. Very important...
intolerable situation. But sadly, not rare or exceptional. There is too much of that happening and a
culture of cover-up and covering up
rather than being honest patients about failures. We are changing the culture, safety is at the heart the 10 year plan and I'll be delighted
to talk to further about his constituent case.
12:48
Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
This morning I met an event... About cancer, that is the fifth his killer in the United Kingdom. They
were anxious to meet the Minister and discuss this matter. Will the Minister meet the bladder cancer organisation to meet the four
objectives they have?
12:48
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am sure my honourable friend, the cancer minister, will be
delighted to meet the campaigners, particularly as we put together the National Cancer Plan. We want to
make sure we capture every type of cancer that and genuinely improve cancer care for everyone in our country.
12:49
Oliver Ryan MP (Burnley, Independent)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister may have seen my constituents recently featured on Newsnight. The local ICB recently refused to access to fertility after recovering from aggressive cancer,
with a high likelihood her illness will return. Will the Minister meet with me and Molly to discuss this issue and access fertility to cancer survivors and patients?
12:49
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will make sure the honourable gentlemen gets that meeting.
12:49
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
That completes questions.
clear that some media organisations have been given access to the SDR before Parliament. It also became
furthermore aware that the timing of such early access may have been different for different
organisations. I asked the Parliamentary Question of the matter of whom and when and they did answer
the question but they made it clear that organisations and think tanks had also been given early access. I asked again and they refuse to
answer. I made it clear that trade unions and our people had been given
early access.
Ministers are required
to answer these questions using the Nolan principles that include accountability and openness, which says that information should not be
withheld from public unless there are clear and honourable reasons to
do so. The government has not followed these processes on announcing this, particularly relevant to this minister because in his declaration of interest he
declares membership of the GMB Unite and that a family member working as a constituent for Babcock International.
12:50
Mr Speaker
-
Copy Link
Order, order. Please, you raise a
point of order with me but you can't go into a full speech. I have got the message and I'm very clear on
the message. Can I first of all say I have no responsibility for the
quality of announcements for written Parliamentary Question. -- Of answers. But I know this is the key that the Procedure Committee takes a
close interest in this matter. She might therefore like to raise it with the honourable member for
Lancaster wire who chairs the committee, in order to seek...
Let me finish with this one, please. So
therefore that would be a good way to take this forward. OK. Point of
order.
12:51
Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Regarding this matter, we now know undoubtedly that the Sunday
Times was given access to the White Paper because you could read most of
it in the Sunday Times the day before Parliament did. Although crucially, the article did not
mention the up to 12 new SS ends. I will explain in a quick second why
that is important. -- SSN. At 10:30
AM, journalists were invited to a reading at Horse Guards Parade, where they were given access to the
White Paper.
Section 811 of the
Ministerial Code very clearly states, and I quoted, "Where commercially sensitive material is
involved, no copy should be made available to the media before publication." Thus clearly and
breach of the code. There was an earlier sitting in the reading room
earlier sitting in the reading room
at 8am, when we know it was also seen by members of defence companies, trade associations, academics, think tanks and trade unionists at the same time that the
markets were opening at 8 o'clock.
So, Mr Speaker, there is a possibility of insider trading.
Babcock share price, and they would benefit from maintaining SS ends,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
let very early on after eight. -- SSN. No, please do not take advance...
12:53
Mr Speaker
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No, please do not take advance... We know there are meant to be a
We know there are meant to be a little bit more punchy, they're not full-blown statements, I take very
seriously the points that are made. That is why I raised myself at the time, so you reiterating my words, I'm very grateful, but what I would
say is that I have no responsibility for the Ministerial Code. That, if
the House wishes, needs to change. Because unfortunately it makes a
nonsense.
There is a Ministerial
Code there. The fact is that it is not been kept as we expect it to.
But it is for this House, if it wishes to change the Ministerial Code, please do so. Or I wouldn't have then happy for the Government
to change it if they cannot accept
it. -- Or I am more than happy. But we cannot have this continuation of regular Ministerial Code, it is appalling, it is unacceptable.
Because in the end it is not a political point, I am here to uphold the rights of the Back Benchers.
The
Back Benchers should be the ones that hit it first. The fact that the
documents are going to be given, they should be given to MPs. -- Here it first. It is about me supporting
MPs. But unfortunately in this particular area I have not the power, I wish I had because it would
be different. Right, let us move on. Point of order.
12:54
Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
... Over the last few days, we
have recognised Jo Cox's murder. As the member responsible for the safety of Members of Parliament, can
you advise me with the additional
focus that members in this House and
encouragement of targeting of MPs with false information, do you have advice on how as members we should be behaving in this chamber and online?
12:54
Mr Speaker
-
Copy Link
What I will say, first of all we
will never discuss member security on the Floor of the House. With issues, please come and see me privately. It me see what I can do
to ensure and reassure members but I sadly do not want to open a debate because I do not think that would
12:55
Presentation of bills
-
Copy Link
add to member safety. So, no, please come and see me in private. We now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
come to presentation of bill. Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill. Second Reading what day? Fourth of July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fourth of July. Fourth of July. Right, we now
12:56
Ten Minute Rule Motion: Registration of Births (Inclusion of Deceased Parents)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fourth of July. Right, we now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
come to the Ten Minute Rule Motion. Thank you, I beg to move that lead be given to bring in a Bill to
lead be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of a parents details on a child's birth certificate where that parent has
certificate where that parent has died for the birth of the child. But the vast majority of parents, registering the birth of their child
12:56
Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
registering the birth of their child is a straightforward process. It is a simple piece of paperwork which
marks a special moment. And one that brings important recognition of their new family, along with notable
legal rights. Yet for a number of
women every year, what should be an... In their journey as a parent becomes a protracted and traumatic
legal battle. The law dictates that it is the duty of the parents to
register the birth of a child within
42 days.
For married couples there is a presumption of paternity for the husband under the law. This means either parent may register the birth unaccompanied by the other,
with both still recorded on the birth certificate. However, in the terrible events that their husband
dies before the child is born, a widowed mother can therefore still
ensure their name is on the birth certificate, which is common sense. However, if the couple are unmarried, the law does not
recognise their relationship the same way. The fact the mother does not have a ring on her finger means
there is no automatic recognition of paternity.
If an unmarried woman experiences that unimaginable
tragedy of losing her partner during pregnancy, there is no provision for
her to register them on the child's
first certificate. Unless both parents can be present, the registrar is deemed unable to verify the paternity of the father. --
Birth certificate. While suffering the grief of losing a loved one and facing a new reality of parenting
alone, bereaved mothers leave the registry office with a blank space on their child's birth certificate
instead of their partner's name.
In order to amend the birth certificate, they have to seek a
declaration of parentage through a lengthy, costly, traumatising legal process in the family courts. In some respects, this is a legal
loophole. The effect of improper and outdated legislation that has failed
to provide for a certain set of particular tragic circumstances. But
it speaks to a deeper inequality within the legal system, that unmarried couples are held in lower regard. The law in this area has not
kept pace with societal change.
The charity widowed young first this
injustice to my attention. An
organisation that provides fantastic support to those who have experienced widowhood earlier in life. I would like to pay tribute to
the honourable member for South Devon, who secured an adjournment debate on this issue and spoke
powerfully and movingly of her own experience of bereavement. And also to the honourable member for
Walthamstow who best expose the shortcomings of the legal process Parliament in 2016. This Bill seeks
to legislate widowed young spank space campaign to come into
existence, -- blank space campaign.
To provide a process for bereaved mothers to register their partner on the child's birth certificate. Through this charity I've heard the
stories of brave and inspiring women, some of whom are in the gallery today to watch proceedings.
And I would like to share their experiences which illustrate the emotional impact of this issue. When Kelly's husband Jordan died suddenly
in 2020, she went from planning their future to planning her fiance's funeral. Shortly after she
gave birth to their daughter, Kelly's battle began to prove that Jordan was the father.
As Kelly
said, he had wanted nothing more out
of his life than to have kids. And was determined his name will be on
Maisie's birth certificate. Kelly used SE 63 form to apply for a declaration of parentage through the family courts, which comes with an
immediate cost of £365. While having
to provide DNA from Jordan's mother and paying out hundreds of pounds in legal fees, Kelly was also asked demeaning questions like whether she
had had any other partners.
After fighting for two years, Kelly received a birth certificate for her daughter Maisie with Jordan's name
on it. She now keeps 12 copies of it around the House and one in her
purse at all times. Orlando and her partner Julian were on holiday when
he unexpectedly collapsed. Just a day after discovering they were
expecting a baby girl, Julian died from a heart attack. When the register told her that Julian would
not be named on her daughter's birth
certificate, she said it felt as if he had been ripped from our history.
Her process through the courts took two years and full hearings. Many of
the judges she encountered never had even come across a situation like this and she was often asked at hearings if Julian would be
attending the$$JOIN /or hearings. As an ambassador or widowed young, she says she is determined to make it
easier for women who follow in her
path. And to Sophie, Sophie is still in the midst of this torturous process. The sudden death of her partner Lawrence she was pregnant
with their daughter turned her world upside down.
Despite having two
children previously, with Lawrence legally registered as a father for both, Sophie was told he would not
be registered as Kinley's father. She was devastated. Registering their son together in 2016 was one
of Lawrence's proudest moment. She says he will always be her dad and should be recognised as such. Sophie
entered the uphill battle of
amending the birth certificate and being bounced between departments and advisers until someone at the children and family Court advisory
and support service intervened on her behalf.
Her hearing is that the magistrates' court on 3 July and will hopefully bring her some
closure to this issue. Sophie says the experience has been exhausting and confusing and emotionally
draining. And I would like to my personal thanks to the women who join us today for sharing these brave stories and allowing me to
brave stories and allowing me to
brave stories and allowing me to
These stories show how potentially dramatic processes. Widowed and Young estimates it affects 200,000
per year.
There are many mothers who will give up out of frustration,
leaving a blank space on the birth certificate of the child. The system for registering births is governed
by Section 10 of the registration
act and section 65A, which is part
of the further legislation. Neither of them makes account for
circumstances when one child is deceased and the other out of marriage. A declaration of parentage
is not intended for this purpose but rather disputing prevented. The legal framework is not fit for
purpose.
When the Births and Deaths
Registration Act came into law, 95% of births in the UK but within
marriage and the figure has reduced deadly sins, with only 50% now borne
in marriage. -- since. The law has
not kept pace. This law would drag legislated into the 21st century and
provide a clear framework. We can
improve this system by allowing registrars to amend the birth certificate and we can similarly
certificate and we can similarly
empower them to correct the absence of a deceased parent, providing there is sufficient evidence of intended parentage.
Unmarried
parents are encouraged to register parentage at antenatal appointments
and a similar system could be created here with a declaration of intended parentage during pregnancy.
intended parentage during pregnancy.
I do not contest the importance of a rigourous process to improve intended parentage but this argument is in support of change in the law,
not against it. Currently, the process is non-existent. Officials are often unable to advise women
about how to register a deceased partner as a parent because there is
no guidance.
The art remains now -- there is no process. Mothers are
being denied a basic rate. This legal framework is causing immense trauma for mothers and children.
This bill would take direct action to address the injustice. It would
provide a clear process for bereaved
mothers to follow and allow the registrar to include a deceased partner on the birth certificate. This small change in the law would
make a huge difference and would spare grieving women and needless legal process and ensure no mother
no child has a blank space on the
birth certificate where the name of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the parent should likely be. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that
bring in the bill. As many of that opinion, say, "Aye." The ayes have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion, say, "Aye." The ayes have it. We will begin the bill? Alice Macdonald, John Grady,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Alice Macdonald, John Grady, Kirith Entwistle, Daniel Francis,
Kirith Entwistle, Daniel Francis,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Registration Registration of Registration of Births Registration of Births (Inclusion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Registration of Births (Inclusion of Deceased Parents) Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second reading, what are they? July 11.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
July 11.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister to move. The question is that the Crime and Policing Bill
that the Crime and Policing Bill eyes is on the order paper. The
eyes is on the order paper. The clerk will now proceed to read the order of the day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
order of the day. Crime and Policing Bill As amended, to be considered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amended, to be considered. We begin with the new clause 52 in principle be convenient to consider the other clauses listed on
the selection paper for the first part of the one. I called the
Minister to move the new clause 52. Minister to move the new clause 52.
13:07
Programme Motion: Crime and Policing Bill: Programme (No. 2)
-
Copy Link
Before I speak to the key government amendments tabled on report, I would like to quickly
remind the House why the government brought the bill forward. It's a vital part of the Safer Streets
mission, containing measures for antisocial behaviour, knife crime, the epidemic of violence against
women and girls, and to restore confidence in policing. It is worth
13:08
Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
reminding the House that on the watch of the previous government, shoplifting sword to record high
shoplifting sword to record high levels with a 70% increase. --
levels with a 70% increase. -- soared. That was the last two years.
soared. That was the last two years. Streets that was rising, over 70%.
Streets that was rising, over 70%. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in towns and cities with 1 million incidents last year and in the year
to June 2034 survey, it was estimated 25% of people perceived
estimated 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in the local area and that is the highest level
area and that is the highest level March 2013, over a decade.
Violence and abuse against shopworkers was at epidemic levels and the British
Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse were over 2000 per day in 2023-24, an increase of 50% on the previous year
and nearly trebled the pre-pandemic figures from 2019-20.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to her for giving way and on that point I have been
way and on that point I have been down to the local Co-op in Chesterfield and met with one of the shopworkers who faced a terrible
shopworkers who faced a terrible attack. In so many cases, there was
attack. In so many cases, there was a sense that shoplifters were able to walk out the door without anything being done. The traumatic
anything being done. The traumatic effect it had on shopworkers had to be seen to be believed.
Will she say
be seen to be believed. Will she say as a result of the bill going through that the message to anyone who wants to walk out of the store
who wants to walk out of the store as police will come after you and
as police will come after you and you will end up going to jail? No, absolutely. That was very well put. Of course, attacks on retail workers
Of course, attacks on retail workers are unacceptable and the work the
Co-op has done to highlight this and ensure it will be enacted in this
bill is important.
It's worth saying that a number of crime types I have
that a number of crime types I have
been talking about, the previous government wrote this off as low- level crime and allowed it to spiral out of control and it was at the
same time that the local neighbourhood policing teams were decimated, causing untold damage to
decimated, causing untold damage to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
communities. I am happy to give way. On the specific point about neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact we have extra capacity
the fact we have extra capacity coming into the West Midlands but I
coming into the West Midlands but I am not clear on whether the money coming into the West Midlands will
coming into the West Midlands will cover national insurance costs and the Labour police Commissioner has
the Labour police Commissioner has said his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
under the Labour Government. The honourable lady, the right honourable lady and I have discussed it before and that made it clear
it before and that made it clear that the National Insurance increases have been funded in the money available to police forces
money available to police forces this year, in stark contrast to the fact the previous government did not
fact the previous government did not make proper allocations for the Police Pay Award for last year that the government then had to
supplement when we came to power in July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the Minister join me in celebrating the neighbourhood police
celebrating the neighbourhood police officers in Harlow? I cannot take the credit for them because I only
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the credit for them because I only thought one of them mathematics. We will have 300 additional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will have 300 additional neighbourhood police officers as
neighbourhood police officers as part of the commitment to the 13,000 that we will have by the end of this
that we will have by the end of this Parliament. If I move onto say that it has been clear throughout the passage of the bill about the
passage of the bill about the measures contained within the bill command support across the House and
command support across the House and I hope over the next two days, right honourable and honourable members can come together to recognise the
can come together to recognise the shared goals the bill fulfils and the government is powerless in the
drive to make streets safer.
I am happy to give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable Lydia setting out clearly what the bill is intending and she points to cross-party
and she points to cross-party support. Will she agree that the
support. Will she agree that the purpose is put in great jeopardy by
purpose is put in great jeopardy by the trend of significant abortions,
the trend of significant abortions, and I know she has a personal
interest in this, and there are many issues that require a further debate than an amendment to a bill, the purpose of which is set out, and the
purpose of which is set out, and the government never intended it to be a Christmas tree but it has become
Christmas tree but it has become one.
The House runs the risk of fracturing purpose if the amendments
fracturing purpose if the amendments are put to the vote and become part
of the legislation. I do not want to try the patience of Mr Speaker
because there is allocation for that debate to take place. The honourable gentleman is an experienced member
of the House and will now that crime bills often become Christmas tree
bills because of their nature and members wish to bring forward
amendments are also active areas of criminal law and so we have the bill before us today with the amendments which have been tabled.
I was going
on to say that the government, and I hope other parties in this House, are committed to meeting streets safer and where there are gaps in
the law, we will not hesitate to address them and store the amendments tabled for report stage
are directly to this end and if I could start to go through the
government amendments, first of all, with criminal exploitation of
children. The new clause 54 will aid legal certainty and the consistent application of the new offence of criminal charge exploitation.
The
new clause makes it clear to courts the offences focused on criminal intentions of the adult only rather than the child and put beyond doubt
than the child and put beyond doubt
that the circumstances where the child is an entirely innocent agent and the child cannot satisfy all the elements of the intended criminal
conduct themselves. The new clause also put beyond doubt that the
offence is capable of capturing the early stage of gripping and, as such, addresses concerns raised in
such, addresses concerns raised in
As well as perpetrators who arrange for another person to exploit a child on their behalf.
At the request of the Scottish government
and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, we are extending this offence to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Moving onto
coerced internal concealment, the new clause 56 criminalises the
highly exploitative and coercive process of internal concealment which is commonly concerned with drug dealing and involves a child or adult being intentionally caused to
conceal drugs or other objects like
weapons or SIM cards inside their body to facilitate criminality. There are two new offences, the first which targets perpetrators who
intentionally cause a child to conceal a specified item inside
their body.
The second new offence applies where adult victim is caused to internally conceal a specified
item through compulsion, version, deception, controlling and
manipulative behaviour, and intense, nor is, reasonably suspects the item
has been used in connection with criminal conduct. The new offences will carry a maximum penalty of up
will carry a maximum penalty of up
New clause 657 replaces 52. This allows the Secretary of State to have statutory guidance to the
have statutory guidance to the
police and others in respect of the exercise of their functions relating to the new coerced internal concealment and cuckooing offences, as well as the Child Criminal
Exploitation Bill offence and prevention orders.
New clause 58
confers a similar power on the
Department of Justice to issue statutory guidance to the Chief Constable of the police service of Northern Ireland in relation to the exercise of their functions relating
to that cc and cuckooing offences. -- CCE. Moving onto controlling
another's home for criminal purposes. Clause 53 creates an
offence of controlling another person's home for criminal offences,
known as going. The offence applies UK wide. Clause 56 then adds the cuckooing offence to the list of
lifestyle offences under schedule four to the proceeds of crime act 2002, which applies to Scotland, parallel changes are made to
schedules two and five which apply
to England and Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
At the request of the Scottish Government, Amendment 57 to clause 56 removes
the amendment in schedule four. Now moving onto child sexual abuse material. Clause 57 creates a new
offence which criminalises the making, possession, adaption or supply of digital files or models
designed to create child sexual abuse material and the offence applies to England and Wales.
Amendments 59 to 68 to clause 57 better provide for low detection from liability to the offence for the provider of an internet service
who acts as a mere conduit for or who cashes or unknowingly hosts a CSA image generator provided by a
user.
It extends liability to a natural person who is responsible for a body corporate partnership or unincorporated association committing the offence, removes the
definition of a CSA image generator that is as service and on reflection
we have concluded that a CSA image generator cannot be used as a service as an offender would require
possession of the generator to use it. And it ends the scope or power
to make regulations governing the testing of technology that might amount to a CSA image generator to ensure it is correctly targeted.
Clauses 59 provide for an offence of administering or modifying of
electronic services with the intent of facilitating child sexual
The term child sexual exploitation and abuse is in part defined by reference to a list of offences in
schedule seven to the Bill. New subsections six to eight of clause 59 and a regulation making power subject to the draft affirmative
procedure to ensure that the list of offences can be kept up to date. In particular, when you offences are
created by act in the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly.
In addition, amendments to
gradual seven add further Scottish offences to the list of child sexual exploitation and abuse offences
specified for the purpose of clause 59 and these amendments apply UK wide. Guidance about disclosure of
information by police for purposes of preventing sex offending, clause
76 confers powers on the Secretary
of State to issue statutory guidance about the disclosure of information by the police for the purposes of preventing sex offences. Chief officers of police are required to
have regard to the guidance.
This provision applies to police forces
provision applies to police forces
in England and Wales, the British Transport Police, which operates GB
wide, and the Ministry of Defence police, which operates UK wide as well. At the request of the Scottish Government, MM and 70 limit the
application to BTB to England and Wales only. Alongside the new offences in this Bill to tackle intimate image abuse, the Data (Use
and Access) Bill includes an offence
of requesting the creation of a reported internet image without consent or reasonable belief in consent including provisions
relating to the powers of the civilian cause to deprive offenders
of images and of the property.
To ensure consistency in the service justice system, an amendment is
required to the Armed Forces act 2006 to get the same deprivation
order powers to service courts. Amendments to the AFA do thousand six require consent from the British Overseas Territories and Crown
Dependencies to whom the act applies, which was not possible to
gain in time during the passage of the data use and access bill, so we propose to make the amendment in this Bill instead. -- AFA 2006.
There are also amendments around
dangerous cycling, the bill was amended in committee to provide for offences relating to dangerous and
careless cycling.
Amendment 74 to 76 make various consequential amendments to the Road traffic
offenders act 1988 and other enactments. Access to driver license information, clause 120 clarifies
the existing powers of the Secretary of State to provide access to driving licences information held by
the DVLA to various policing and law enforcement bodies for policing and law enforcement purposes. Amendment 87 makes employees of the economic
crime and confiscation unit in Jersey authorised persons for the purposes of these provisions. Moving
on now to abusive behaviour towards emergency workers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister, quite clearly the issues in the legislation, the bulk
issues in the legislation, the bulk of which today is for... But there
of which today is for... But there is a real important aspect of that,
is a real important aspect of that, that the share of knowledge, the share of information with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with the Scottish Parliament, for example, so they will be aware of
example, so they will be aware of what is happening here stop and those who may move from England or Wales to Northern Ireland or Scotland, to just ensure the
Scotland, to just ensure the exchange of information between the police forces and between the authorities in the devolved Administrations takes place.
I feel
Administrations takes place. I feel if we want to have security and safety for all of our people, we really need to have that, thanks very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very much. I totally agree with the honourable member and I think that sharing of information and good
sharing of information and good practice and policy development is really important. And I hope that will go from strength to strength
under this government. If I return to what I was saying about emergency
workers. We all know that emergency workers put themselves in harms way to protect us all every day. They
deserve robust protection in return.
This includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but also
undermines the values and decency, respect and public service.
Unlike
most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter a private home, they do
so not by choice but because it is their duty to do so. Whether
responding to a 999 call, providing
urgent medical care or intending an incident involving risk to life or property, emergency workers are
legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation
simply because they are doing abuse. The law must recognise this and ensure they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings.
At present there is a
clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections
against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, those protections do not extend to abuse that occurs inside
private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted this gap and
emphasise the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers.
New clauses 6262 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the
use of racially or religiously, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards an
emergency worker acting in the course of their duties.
Crucially this includes incidents that take
place within a private dwelling. This is a focused and proportionate measure, it does not interfere with
Freedom of Expression Bill, rather it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to
carry out their critical roles without been subject to hate or
hostility because of their race or religion. I hope the honourable member Esher and Walton will agree
that these government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause, 120. Now turning to
her new clause, 120.
Now turning to
war memorials. Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded
to nationally significant war memorials providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war
memorials without excuse. We believe the same protections should now be
extended to other nationally significant memorials. Starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill
in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue is a prominent national symbol of Britain's wartime
leadership. This has repeatedly been targeted and climbed upon during protests in recent years, including
it within the new offence ensures consistent protection of one of the
foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance.
Amendment 77-84
therefore expands the scope of the new offence to include other
memorials of national significance, in addition to adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials already set out
specified memorials already set out
in schedule 12 to the Bill. I just want to now turn to remotely stored electronic data. New clauses 63-70
and 81 and new schedule one clarify powers for law enforcement agencies
to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations to
protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security.
The powers will apply where law enforcement agencies have
lawfully seized an electronic device as part of national security
examination at UK borders or when a person provides that agreement. New clause 70 also amend the
Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to
permit the interception of access - related communications, such as two factor authentication codes. These reforms are necessary to ensure our law enforcement agencies have clear
powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating
serious offences including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security amongst others.
At a time when more and more
others. At a time when more and more
information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people's electronic devices. Turning now to new clauses 72-79 and new schedule
three, a crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Amongst
other things, this means ensuring that only those were fit to serve
can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. Alongside strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, these new clauses
require the National Crime Agency, British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the
Ministry of Defence Police Act to establish large persons list and
advisory lists similar to those created in 2017 for territorial
police forces in England and Wales.
The chief officers of these forces and others will be under a legal duty to consult these lists before
employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing for rejoining another force in the
rejoining another force in the
future. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiencies and collaboration program to cut waste
and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services
to the police are delivering the most benefit and unlocking the
efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public.
In announcing the Government
intention to consult on establishing a new national centre policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisages the body being responsible
for existing shared services,
national IT capabilities and force hosted national capabilities. It is right the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure these capabilities
are fully aligned to the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration program and that they
are adequately prepared for, transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New
clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings, providing critical
services and capabilities to policing, to take appropriate action to strengthen their service
delivery, to better deliver our efficiencies program and ahead of
any future legislation, to establish the national centre for policing.
To remove any barriers to the transition of services into that new
centre. Turning now to begging. We
have tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the government's commitment to bringing into force the repeal of the
outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. Which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally
the case that where begging reaches
the threshold of antisocial behaviour, there are already sufficient powers available to the
police and others to address this. But we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the
repeal of the 1824 act, which these
two new clauses see to address.
New clause 52 creates a new criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another persons begging
for gain. Organised begging, which
is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits and vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for
anyone to organise others to beg, for example by driving people to
places for them to take. This will allow the police to crackdown on the organised criminal gangs that use this exploitative technique to
this exploitative technique to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
obtain cash for illicit activity. I thank the Minister who is being very generous with her
interventions. Having worked for homeless charity, I know this issue
homeless charity, I know this issue first-hand, would she agree with me that when there is this organisation behind the begging, actually the person who is being bolster beg actually is being exploited? These
**** Possible New Speaker ****
actually is being exploited? These laws will help to tackle a form of exploitation? -- Who is being forced to beg. These are exploited individuals, by Serious Organised Crime
by Serious Organised Crime Prevention Order gangs and we are going to clamp down on their
going to clamp down on their New clause 53 make it an offence for a person to press pass on any
a person to press pass on any premises which covers any building or part of a building with the intention of committing an offence,
intention of committing an offence, without this replacement offence, the police would only be able to
rely on trespassing the decision, as set out in a Theft Act which only
covers trespassing in relation to burglary.
It is important the police
have the powers to tackle all cases, with intent to commit an offence, and new clause of 53 will ensure
that is the case. Moving on to extradition, new clause 82 amends
the Extradition Act 2003, under that
act, the UK can accept extradition requests where the requested person
has already been convicted in the requesting state. When considering
these cases, if the requested person
was convicted and determined they did not deliberately absent themselves from the trial, a UK
judge is bound by the 2003 act to determine whether the individual is entitled to a retrial in the
requesting state.
This new clause firstly aligns with the agreement
with that government the right for a retrial in the context of UK-EU extradition Corporation. This will
improve legal certainty and remove
confusion in the extradition system. Secondly, the new clause respond to a recent Supreme Court ruling to the
effect that the current drafting of the 2003 act should be read as
acquiring a guaranteed retrial in the requesting state. The 2003 act
had previously been interpreted as a right to apply for a retrial,
subject to the domestic laws of the requesting state.
There are several states which cannot offer assurances to meet the conditions imposed by
the judgement and there is...
Therefore, there is a public safety risk of individuals being discharged if a new interpretation of the 2003
act were to stand. New clause 80 to reinstate the previous
interpretation that only the right to apply for retrial is required to
commit extradition in a case where the person was absent at the trial. I also want to comment on a few
other amendments.
First of all,
during committee, the government added to the bill what are now clauses 29 to 32, which introduces a
two-step verification process for the sale and delivery of knives and crossbows purchased online. Those provisions apply where a knife,
crossbow or part of a crossbow is been delivered to a residential
**** Possible New Speaker ****
address. Can I thank the Minister for giving way, and congratulate her
giving way, and congratulate her both on the Bill as it stands but also the amendments made today. Near
also the amendments made today. Near my constituency, there has been a troubling spate of incidents where young people, in some cases
young people, in some cases encouraged all the men, filming themselves catapulting wildlife,
themselves catapulting wildlife, doing damage to the wildlife, and placing the footage on a TikTok. The
placing the footage on a TikTok.
The footage is deeply unpleasant, I do not recommend anybody looks at it.
Would the Minister agree that behaviour goes well beyond antisocial and may, at some point,
antisocial and may, at some point, require a ban on the use of catapults generally. Perhaps the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
catapults generally. Perhaps the sale of catapults but certainly for that purpose. Sadly, that is not the first time
I have heard about such appalling behaviour, attacking, injuring
animals, using catapults. I am raising that with my counterpart in
Defra to see what more we might be able to do, but I am aware this is something that needs to be looked
at. I would like to thank my honourable friend for raising that.
I wanted to refer... Return to amendments 24 to 33, which will
require operators of collection points for items, knives and
crossbows as we discussed, to carry out the same enhanced age
verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer.
Or in the case of crossbows, crossbow parts,
to the buyer or the hire of the item. This is in the same way that
clause 30 imposes a requirement on
careers. Clause 103 introduces a cost and expenses protection for law
enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the
High Court or in Scotland, the Court of Session Act. Is currently drafted, it is not clear how the
cost protections measures apply to pre-existing cases, particularly
where cases have started before the provisions came into force but costs are incurred after the provisions
came into force.
As a result, it might be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered.
Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measures
come into force. Turning to
confiscation. Schedule 15 introduces
reforms to the confiscation regime in England and in respect of the proceeds of crime. Amongst other things, the reforms make provision
for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing
outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance where there is
be placed in abeyance where there is
no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term.
And all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made
under legislation, as I just said,
predating 2002 act. I want to now turn to youth diversion orders,
chapter 1 of part 14 of the Bill vied for youth diversion orders. A new counterterrorism risk management
full for young people who, on the balance of political court assesses to have committed a terrorism
offence, an offence with a terrorism connection or engaged in conduct
likely to facilitate a terrorism offence.
The court considers it necessary to make the order for the
purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm. The amendments to clause 139 make a
change to the scope of YDO's to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including
21-year-old. Currently, a court
might make a YDO in respect of a
person aged 10 to 21 but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could
benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change will increase the operational utility of
the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wide variety of cases involving
young people.
Clause 1412 enables
YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent possession or use of electronic devices. The amendment to
this clause set at an nonexhaustive
list of some of them most intrusive requirements that might be imposed to support the polices ability to
monitor come -- compliance, providing a clearer footing for imposing such requirements. For
example, this would allow and impose a requirement on Sunday subject to a
YDO to enable the police to access advice for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions, such
as accessing specific websites or applications.
This would allow the
police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and
intervene before it escalates. As with other measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements where necessary and
proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism and serious harm.
Technical amendments are also required to clauses 140 and 150,
relating respectively to the definitions of police detention for Scotland and Northern Ireland and
the appeals process in Northern Ireland.
The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the
purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland come the amendments
to clause 151 provides that where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but
continues to fail to comply, they then commit an offence. Madam Deputy Speaker, the other government
members in this group make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill and were detailed in the
letter that I sent last week to the honourable member.
10 W., a copy of
which has been placed in the low B. With your permission, I seek to respond to the non-governmental
amendments when winding up and for now, I commend the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment to the House. The question is that new clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that new clause 52 we read a second time. I called the shadow Minister.
13:40
Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, listening to the comments, I would like to express my appreciation to all of those who have worked on this legislation.
Developing and shaping these policies, whether that be the majority developed under the last Conservative government or the members of the Bill team who have
members of the Bill team who have provided helpful assistance to ministers. As I'm sure we are here today, some of this legislation are
a result of amazing people who suffered the worst experiences and
suffered the worst experiences and have worked to ensure that others do not have to you in the future.
Additionally, considering the context of the legislation, it is
context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers
excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harms way
forces put themselves in harms way to keep our streets safe. They could
to keep our streets safe. They could not be thanked enough. Many people ask whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene,
officers across the country do so on a daily basis.
Thanks to the last Conservative government, effort, the
police force numbered over 149,000
officers in 2024. With 149,000...
149,764 recorded in March 24, the highest number of officers on both a
full-time equivalent and headcount basis since comparable records began in March in March 2003. There are meaningful and important measures...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the... Mike
honourable friend for setting out those fleeting numbers, does he share with me my concerns but when
share with me my concerns but when it comes to the additional police officers, when we look at the figures for the West Midlands, the
figures for the West Midlands, the boost is coming from deployments, I do worry where they are actually coming from and how much of an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
increase we are seeing? I wholeheartedly agree, there are lots of concerns about the
lots of concerns about the neighbourhood policing going to and whether resource comes from, whether
it is specials and volunteers, whether it is redeploying people, people want to know when they bring
people want to know when they bring 999, they will get the response they expected, they do not want to see
that depleted, it has consequences. The biggest hit on the police force will be the national insurance rise,
that tax taxing police of our streets, the chair of the National...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way, I think we disagree on many things but
think we disagree on many things but he has given a well presented speech. Will he not recognise that there might be an increase in
there might be an increase in numbers in policing that we have seen a decrease in police staff, in
seen a decrease in police staff, in Essex, we lost over 400 police staff in office and a number of police officers have been redeployed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
officers have been redeployed. I am glad to see the police officers getting the proper training
officers getting the proper training through his cheating and I'm glad -- maths teaching and I'm glad to see his concerns, the number of police
his concerns, the number of police on Street is a huge concern. The chair of the council has said the funding will not match the
funding will not match the government's ambitions. Short of maintaining the existing workforce.
Listen to the Police Federation who stated that this Chancellor has not listened to police officers, can the
Minister confirm that by the end of the Parliament will be more police
officers and windsurfing in March
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2024? -- van were serving in 2024? As an ex-police officer myself, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As an ex-police officer myself, I thank him for his word about police officers, does he agree that this
officers, does he agree that this Bill, when passed, actually gives the police more confidence that the powers will give them the right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
powers. I welcome the measures in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I welcome the measures in the bill, I hope they will really help the police officers in keeping the streets safe but they do need the
streets safe but they do need the resource, they need funding, they need the support to enforce legislation we are putting forward
legislation we are putting forward and I thank for his service. Today and tomorrow, the House will debate
a number of amendments and new courses, are opposition members are sensible, aimed at improving the
sensible, aimed at improving the bill.
There are constituents who wants to get behind. Amendment 175 relate to the objective, which we
all want to see achieved, reducing knife crime by 50%. We know the
untold damage that it causes to victims, families, and communities
across the country. The legislation introduces a new offence, possession of an article with a blade or point
or an Offensive Weapons Act, with the intent to use unlawful violence, let's put this in context, imagine
you are in the garden, enjoying a
peaceful afternoon, suddenly police officers sweeping on a man walking down the street, a man carrying a
knife who is then proven, and all reasonable doubt, to have plan to
use it for violence.
He could have been coming for your neighbours, friends or family, this is a man who
clearly needs to be locked up. Would you want to see him put away for
four years or 14 years? Or whatever he's sentenced to, he is likely to
serve less. Who knows how much of the four years he would serve before he can walk back Daniel Street.
Don't take it from me, this is a more appropriate and fitting sentence, take it from the
professional that the government put in charge of assessing legislation relating to terrorism, Jonathan Hall
KC, Independent Review, has looked at the horrific incident in
Southport, he supports the creation of this offence, and said the
Knife crime has devastating
consequences for our communities.
Increasing the penalty to 14 years would send a clear and unequivocal message that such dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated. And
that those who pose a risk to the public will face the most severe of consequences. I urge members to support this amendment. I want to
refer the issue of fly-tipping. People across the country are rightly furious to see fly-tippers
dumping waste in our green spaces. They are all too aware of the impact
on our environment, and the ability of others to enjoy communal areas.
Amendment 174 recognises the scourge littering and fly-tipping represents across the country. According to
figures compiled by DEFRA, in the 2023/24 year, local authorities in
England dealt with 1.15 million
incidents of fly-tipping. And are estimated to spend more than £11 million of taxpayers money cleaning
it up each year. That money could be better spent on frontline services.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To further that point, when it comes to the cost of litter and
comes to the cost of litter and fly-tipping, littering is costing
fly-tipping, littering is costing the country £1 million a year. Again that is money, does he agree, that could go on to frontline services.
could go on to frontline services. It is about time we took some harsher or more stringent measures
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harsher or more stringent measures to change behaviour, and some good enforcement. I could not agree more. A small
minority who wreak havoc and create absolute chaos. That is what this
absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about. It is about tougher sanctions to divert those people from doing such things. That money could be better spent, the
money could be better spent, the money that is wasted every year to be better spent on frontline services, pulling potholes, providing community services.
providing community services.
Instead it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The
most common location for fly-tipping was on pavements and roads which
account for 37% of all incidents in 2023/24. The majority of these
involved are small van sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could
easily fit in a car boot, 59%. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping
incident stemmed from vehicles. Using the vehicle to dump a van full
boot full of waste should come with real consequences.
And they should
feel that their ability to use their vehicle as well as through financial penalties. The last government increased fines for fly-tipping from
£400 up to £1000. We can go further to deter people from dumping on the
doorsteps of others. This amendment
would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers, and those
who tossed rubbish from vehicles. The Bill Committee, the minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue full stop today by passing
this amendment we could go further than that.
Committing to undertake a consultation, to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the
benefit of all those who want to be
able to enjoy their green spaces, for the environment and wildlife
that suffers at the hands of fly- tippers and those who tossed waste, I urge members to support this amendment. Let's send a message to
the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces. Before concluding my remarks, I would also
like to draw the attention of the House to amendment 167, 168, 170, and 171.
These aim to strengthen
respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in committee and
the chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of this
policy will be contingent upon
effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators knowledge that they will face tough sanctions if they breach these. I hope the
government will continue to consider these as we move forward. I draw the attention of members to these amendments, as they are indicative
of the constructive approach that members on this side of the House have taken towards improving this
bill.
The ways that we believe will benefit and improve the legislation as a whole. I hope members across the House will give serious
consideration to the proposed amendments and new clauses over the coming two days. The Minister and I
have spent more time together than she ever likely envisaged, I believe
we can both agree that there are some sensible and proportionate measures in this bill. Greater protections for retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial
behaviour, and measures to tackle file and horrendous child exploitation. We can work together
to go further.
And that is what our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opposition amendments seek to do. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by welcoming this bill.
It will deliver so much my constituents in relation to protecting people from crime and enabling tough action on antisocial
behaviour in areas that have been labelled low level for too long and
labelled low level for too long and ignored by the elites. It will
ignored by the elites. It will introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse, but the key recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which I will refer as IICSA for the remainder of the speech.
It is a
remainder of the speech. It is a long overdue measure and one long called for by the Home Secretary and Prime Minister. However, I remain concerned the government is not
concerned the government is not going far enough on the issue of mandatory reporting. That is why I
have made three amendments on that subject. I was 10, 11, and 22, which my speech today will focus on. These
are not intended to change government policy. Quite the
opposite. These are intended to deliver government's stated policy, to implement the recommendations
relevant to the Home Office in full.
The Home Secretary stated in January
this was the government's intention. And yesterday in response to my
question from her statement with a firm yes, and I asked if it remainder policy to implement it in
full. There are three significant gaps in our plans to implement
recommendations 13. With these gaps, I'm concerned that duty to report
will be ineffective in some of the settings where it is most needed. Religious groups in particular. I
will use the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that I grew up in to
illustrate how and why.
They have a deep cultural distrust of secular
authorities. That leads to a culture of keeping everything internally as happens in a lot of different
religious groups, and including in child sexual abuse. In reporting
nothing. Furthermore there are internal processes for doing so which are atrocious. There is something called the two witness
rule which means they take no action on any wrongdoing unless there are two witnesses. There are never two
witnesses to child sexual abuse. I give this context to highlight why
that mandatory duty to highlight must be watertight as IICSA
recommended to prevent people in leadership of organisations like this from avoiding it.
I will come
to the three gaps in turn. Firstly, there are no criminal sanctions if
you don't comply with the duty. Anderson the government is preparing
professional sanctions, but that is not actually on the face of the bill
and would only apply to a fraction of people under the duty. It would
not for example apply in religious settings where so many of the things are happening and whether duty would
immensely help to protect children. IICSA were clear that failure to
comply should be a criminal friends.
My amendment 10 makes this the case,
but not as a fine which is in line with the appropriate section. Many
of the countries, France, Australia, parts of Canada, have introduced
mandatory reporting. Many have done so with criminal sanctions of this kind. While the government will likely say that criminal sections
could have a chilling effect and stop people going into professions that work with children,
international evidence clearly shows this does not happen. The thrilling state of Victoria, a professor has
done some extensive research on reporting laws and their efficacy.
I
encourage the Minister to examine this. The second gap relates to who
13:55
Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
actually comes under the duty to report. IICSA recommended it should apply to anyone working in red list
apply to anyone working in red list activities with children under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. But they also recommend should apply to anyone in any position of
apply to anyone in any position of trust over a child as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. My
Sexual Offences Act 2003. My amendment 22 would make it included. At the moment the bill creates a
At the moment the bill creates a list of relevant activities in parts two of schedule eight which replicates about 90% of what is in
replicates about 90% of what is in the Sexual Offences Act.
The missing amount is critical for stoppage includes sports teachers which are
includes sports teachers which are schedule does not. To go back to my example, the Sexual Offences Act
example, the Sexual Offences Act includes the definition of religious leaders in section 20 2A. We have
put a definition of religious leaders but it requires them to have
a regular unsupervised contact with children to be subject to the duty. That will allow virtually any
religious leader, be they paid clergy or Jehovah's Witness to
escape the duty.
As very few have regular unsupervised contact with
children, despite being in a significant positions of power and influence. I happen to know at least
one person who was sexually abused as a child in an organisation was
they went to speak to religious
elders about it, and they were advised that to go to the police
would mean bringing reproach on God's name. So no report was made by the by the victim, their family, all the religious elements. This is
commonplace.
Under the bill as currently drafted, there is no sanction. The elders have no duty,
and even if they were, the proposed
offence about reporting only applies to others mandated reporters will stop so someone pressures the victim
not to make report, that won't be illegal. That takes me to the next
order I know the NSPCC is calling on the government to have a broader
offence of concealing child sexual abuse.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the member for giving
way. He is making a very important point particularly about the Jehovah's Witness cult. One of the methods that they use to ensure that
methods that they use to ensure that issues like this don't escape from the organisation itself is the act
the organisation itself is the act
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the organisation itself is the act Disfellowship. I wonder if he will go further in recognising that? I will. I'm pleased other embers
of the house are aware of that
issue, I think it is certainly relevant to what I'm discussing
relevant to what I'm discussing here. To give the House a bit more context, what it essentially means is if that organisation decides that
someone has committed a serious sin, it can essentially tell or friends and family to cut them off.
The same applies if they choose to leave the
religion. Very rarely does that apply to perpetrators of crimes but
more often to victims. It is an enormous problem that has to be dealt with. I look forward to engaging further on that. The
Australian Royal Commission which investigated the handling of abuse
cases were highlighted at second reading, found that allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1006 individuals in
Australia alone. Not a single one was reported to the police. We must
tighten up this definition to make sure it includes religious leaders.
Government can do that by amending our definition in item 17 of parts
two of schedule four. Also adding a
further item to that list in relation to sports professionals. The much neater and stronger legislative solution would be to
just do what IICSA said and refer to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the definition therein. My amendment 22
does this. The third problem relates
to what triggers the duty to report. IICSA recommended applying three
cases. Thusly, a mandated reporter is told by a child a perpetrator that abuse has taken place.
Sadly,
they see it happening, or thirdly, they observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse. This can
range from something like child getting pregnant or having a sexually transmitted infection, two
sexually transmitted infection, two
other indicators. The third point is not included, recognised indicators,
also known as recognised suspicion. Children do not report what is done
to them at the time it is happening. They tend to do so years after it happens, it is far too late to
protect them and far too late to catch the perpetrator and stop them
harming other children.
That Australian Royal Commission in 2015 found the average time for someone
to disclose child sexual abuse was 22 years after it had happened. Including reasonable suspicion, it
is critical. That is what my amendment 11 does. Given the
potential subjective judgements
needed in that case, amendment 11 exempts the case of recognised indicators from criminal sanction for non-compliance. This is what IICSA recommended. The government
may be of the view that including recognised indicators and making those changes to include editions of
trust more thoroughly will lead to further additional reports that will overwhelm the system with false
leads and prevent real cases of abuse been tackled.
These are very
reasonable concerns. But again, we must look at international examples where this just has not taken place.
In Australia, there was an increase in cases of they brought in robust reporting laws, but the system
adapted and coped. Existing
screening processes were worked to remove this more effectively. And the number of substantiated reports made doubled. Meaning that's twice
as many sexually abused children were identified. This is making a huge difference. We don't even have
to go internationally to see the impact, we just have to go to Northern Ireland which already has
mandatory reporting for all adults.
As part of the broader legislation,
requiring reporting of arrestable offences to police. There is no
The Home Secretary has reaffirmed
the government policy recommendations in full under the remit of the scheme in full. I know
that the government will need to reflect on the issues in detail, I will not press these amendments to vote today, but colleagues in the
other place, I am aware, will press them. A number of honourable
member's have signed them, with 12 signatures, there is a significant
fear that without these changes,
mandatory reporting duty is to week.
The impact assessment on a similar version in the last government wasn't coming. Predicting only a
small increase by returning to what I mentioned earlier around the
potential offence for concealing, and that it had put this in as an
amendment in the correct way, essentially, the NSPCC have highlighted a number of cases where
they are arguing the Bill does not go far enough to cover the multitude
of ways that it could allow people who intentionally conceal described to slip through the net.
There were
a number of cases where they believe a lack of reporting had bordered on
concealment and a couple of examples, we can imagine clause 73,
as currently drafted, means a senior Leader of an organisation chooses to
move on an employee I suspect, rather than ensuring they are reported, may not be caught under the offence around preventing
someone else from reporting, if the actions do not actively prevent or
deter the reporting. Other actions include institutions or authorities
destroying evidence to prevent it being reinvestigated or, in some
other way, hampering the investigation is taking place.
Or someone burying evidence after it
has been reported so it can't be properly investigated, this Bill
provides us with a strong opportunity to deal with those
issues and I hope as it goes through the other place. So, thank you for calling me and for listening that, I
hope the government will look at these issues in more detail so we
can find a solution.
14:04
Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Lisa Smart.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, madam Deputy Speakers, I rise to speak to amendment 160 in
I rise to speak to amendment 160 in my name, in favour of amendments 157
and 158. I want to start by thanking all of those who have campaigned over many years, some of the sensible changes in the law we are
discussing today. I want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including my own, and
police forces, including my own, and
police forces, including my own, and noble friend's for the work on the Bill Committee.
The amendment 116 shows the police cannot use my
shows the police cannot use my facial recognition technology and imposing conditions on public
imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the bill unless
sections 12 or 14 of the bill unless a new, specific code of by both
houses. Regulations around the use of life facial recognition have been discussed many times, support for strengthening the current
uncertainty to police forces gaining support from all sides, both in this chamber and Westminster, I hope this
amendment does the same today.
Liberal Democrats oppose the use of
facial recognition surveillance, we believe it reaches the right to privacy, it is often biased,
particularly given the propensity to identify people of colour and women.
In our manifesto, we committed to immediately halted the use of life
facial recognition. In all cases where police use data or technologies like AI, we believe
they must regulated to ensure there
is no bias. And it is used in a way that is transparent and accurate and respect the privacy of innocent
people.
Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime. On the
question of bias, much of the recent debate is centred around the 2023
study into the equitable of facial recognition technology in law
enforcement. This report is cited by proponents of facial recognition
including the shadow Home Secretary, at the dispatch box when the Bill came before the House at second
reading and doing the well attended Westminster Hall debates. But, we
should not overlook one of the most
critical findings, in life facial recognition, where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist, the
likelihood of a full positives is not fixed.
Instead, it depends
heavily on the specific parameters of how the technology is deployed, particularly the face match
threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and
competition of the watchlist as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the
surveillance. The study recommends, where operation is feasible, that police used a face match threshold
of 0.6 to reduce the risk of bias. However, and this is crucial,
without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to
adopt this or any specific standard.
In other words, the presence of the
technology alone does not ensure fairness, without oversight, there
is remit for bias to persist in her facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the
wrong people being stopped and searched, an area of policing that already disproportionally impact
black communities. New technologies in policing might produce good
opportunities to improve public safety and police should take
advantage of that to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant
concerns relating to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them
are scrutinised by both houses.
Liberal Democrat amendment 160 ensures that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public
assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Bill unless a new, specific Code of Practice
governing its use has been approved
by both houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes
to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties and I hope it gets support
across the House. Just a few words, regarding amendment, antisocial
panels -- powers, as members have
said, this afternoon, it blights communities, Rhodes trust, frees the social fabric and disproportionately
affect the most vulnerable.
Many colleagues have raised issues within
their own communities, I see it in my own constituency, we have got
off-road bikes, a plight, they are a persistent blight on my committee,
the intimate people, they endanger public safety and they are just
really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough
but fair and proportionate, that is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which ensure
that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed and that any new guidance that is
created is created with public
input.
I would also like to welcome amendment three, in the name of my honourable friend. Which aims to
ensure the duty to report covers
faith groups. I would really encourage him to find an ally in his
community safely when it is proportioned and balances civil liberties implications of giving
more powers to the police. I hope
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they are supported across the House. Thank you, I write to support the Bill and speak to amendment 20
Bill and speak to amendment 20 tabled in my name, and supported by more than 50 members from across the House. The measures in this Bill represent the most significant
14:10
Kirith Entwistle MP (Bolton North East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
represent the most significant package of crime prevention and
police reforms in a generation. Strengthening action against shoplifting, knife crime and antisocial behaviour, to introducing
new powers to confront child sexual abuse, this legislation gives our police tools that they need to take
back our high streets and town
centres, I want to support this Bill and I'm proud this government is showing leadership by putting victims first, supporting the
police, and turning the tide on crime after 14 years of conservative
neglect.
It is in that same vein that victims are at the heart of our justice system that I tabled an
amendment 20, it raises an urgent issue, the devastating link between domestic abuse and suicide. And the failure of our legal system to properly reflect it. This amendment
is supported by a pioneering black feminist organisation, founded in
1979, dedicated to empowering black, minor enhanced and migrant women and
girls, for a -- over four decades
have been a childless -- trail
blazer in advocating and addressing
barriers rooted in racism, sexism and economic inequalities.
Their mission is to dismantle the injustices harming women and girls
whilst fostering global solidarity
rooted in equity, justice and empowerment. I sincerely thank the dedicated staff for their help. Too
often, those who drive victims suicide through sustained coercion or psychological abuse walk away
or psychological abuse walk away
without consequence. Whilst the Bill introduces offences and self-harm, it full short of recognising the full impact victims of domestic
abuse, particularly when it ends in suicide. The statistics should stop
us in our tracks, according to the vulnerability practice program,
suspected suicide linked to domestic abuse numbers domestic homicide.
It is estimated that three women died
by suicide every week as a result of abuse and yet, since 2017, there has
been just one conviction, where a victim of suicide was legally
recognised as the outcome of domestic abuse. One, it is not justice, it is a failure to see
these women, recognise what they have endured and hold their abuses
to account. Coercive control and psychological torment might leave no
bruises but the impact is every bit as lethal and when domestic abuse and in suicide, it must be
recognised for what it is, a crime.
The injustice of this issue. Yes on
those already most marginalised, black minority and migrant women face the highest barriers safety,
rooted in racism, immigration
security, stigma and a lack of culturally competent services. Do often they are misjudged,
criminalised or ignored. The justice system and society must stop asking,
why didn't she leave? And start
asking, why wasn't he stopped? That is the change amendment 20 calls
for. It chimes alight on these deaths and makes clear that when abuse leads to suicide, and almost see it, hear it and respond.
I am
pleased that through this bill the government is taking forward meaningful changes to deliver on the
mission to harm violence against women and girls. I do not intend to
press my amendment to a vote but I hope ligament will bring forward changes to recognise this link and ensure the laws reflect the reality.
In France, the law was changed in
2022 recognise suicide or attempted suicide as an outcome of domestic abuse. A perpetrator may now face up
to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine if abuse is found
to have significant contributed to the victim's death, that is A-level of seriousness that this issue
should demand, I am grateful for the Minister for meeting with me to
discuss the issues my amendment raises and I welcome the invitation to submit evidence to the
forthcoming Law Commission review.
I also welcome the recognition that current homicide laws do not
adequately reflect these cases. I fully support the Bill's mission to
fully support the Bill's mission to
protect victims and restore trust in the justice system, but that justice must be complete, the women driven to take the reliance by abuse must
no longer be invisible to the law. In short, amendment 20 criminalises abuses amendment 20 Criminalises Abuses Who Dr victims to suicide by
introducing a new offence of
encouraging self-harm or suicide following a sustained pattern of abuse.
It introduces new offences for encouraging or assisting shall
harm that. Short of carrying cases
of suicide. Recognising this abuse in law is critical, it would reflect
the safe -- severe impact of coercive control and increase
survival and public confidence in the criminal justice system. It would compel judges, juries,
commoners, and police to properly investigate and respond to such cases, treating them with the
seriousness they deserve, ultimately, it ensures that victims are not failed by the legal
framework but continue to overlook
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of my amendment
rise in support of my amendment number 19 to this bill. It seeks to
14:16
Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
number 19 to this bill. It seeks to amend clause 94, which brings in a
new law to make spiking, or administering a harmful substance,
and offence. I am grateful for cross-party support I have received
for this amendment. From MPs in Labour, Conservative, Liberal
Democrats, Green, and independent. The law, intended law around
spiking, is a sound one, and it generally has cross-party support. Indeed it was in a previous version
of this bill under the previous government.
My concern is that it
has a defect. There is a loophole in
the law, and my amendment seeks to close that by ensuring that spiking by a reckless act is also an
offence. Spiking is a hideous
heinous activity that destroys lives. It destroys people's physical
health, it's destroys their mental health, and at worse, it kills
people. The majority of victims of
spiking are women, 74%. The average age of those being spiked is just
26.
But there is no typical spiking
incident. The majority involved have something in their drink, but needle
spiking is also on the rise. The most likely place for it to happen is in a bar, pub, or club, but it
can happen anywhere including in a supermarket or on the street. The
motivations behind spiking are probably most commonly thought
amongst members of the public to be
motivated by sexual intent, or motivated to facilitate a theft. But
at Bill Committee, we heard from
Colin Mackie from Spike Aware of a very different type of spiking.
It is this that I think the new law
fails to address. That is the rise in spiking that seems to have no
particular intent behind it. It is sometimes referred to as prank
spiking. Spiking for, and I quote the government owned guidance, "
Seemingly a bit of fun. " We heard
from Colin Mackie about how his son, Greg, died through suspected spiking
of this kind. What this bill does is
criminalises spiking with intent,
administering a harmful substance, with intent to injure, grieve, or
annoy.
I do not accept that every case of spiking fits into that
definition. I give an example of a scenario where recklessness would
cover it. By the way, I should say recklessness is a well trodden
principle in the criminal law,
dating back over 200 years. It is an alternative to intent, so that if
the execution failed to establish
that someone meant to do something, it can alternatively establish that
their actions were so reckless they should be convicted.
An example
being assault causing actual bodily
harm. The prosecution must establish
the harm but it can either establish that someone intended that harm, or they did an act so reckless that
harm was bound to follow. And it doesn't matter which they establish to a jury, they will secure a
conviction. The same with manslaughter. The prosecution can
run a case, that although someone did not intend for someone else to
die, their actions were so reckless they should have known somebody might die, and they secure a
conviction.
In the absence of that
spiking law, those two offences are often used but are often defective
in themselves. That is why the government is bringing its own
spiking law. But it failed to replicate the principle of recklessness within it. I give an
example, a hypothetical one. A group
of friends go into a bar. Two of them have been taking illegal drugs. It is something they have done
before, they are enjoying themselves. And they say to each other, that friend in our circle
with us, he needs to loosen up some
more.
He needs to stop his ridiculous opposition to just having
a little fun by taking these pills. I tell you what, we will do him a
favour. Let's not tell them. These pills we have been taking, let's slip one in his drink so he can
loosen up and enjoy the evening like we are. They go ahead and do that, and of course their friend are
likely is harmed. He may not have
done that drug before and maybe
taking description drugs.
When those two people are taken to trial, of course I'm sure this house will
intent that they have committed a crime. But I see a scenario where their defence will say, members of
the jury, my clients were foolish, they were silly, they should not
have done it. They did not intend to annoy their friend. They did not
intend to injure their friend. What they intended to do was have a bit of fun and help him have a bit of
fun. And it was stupid but they did not intend it.
How is a jury supposed to convince beyond
reasonable doubt on that? Instead, if the prosecution were able to come
back and point to recklessness, they
would be able to say we do not care whether those two people intended
giving their friend found for that friend. It was so obviously reckless, it was so obviously
reckless to any reasonable person, that it must be a crime and you must
convict. I think that is a much more wide-ranging all-encompassing tried
and tested legal principle that the
clause needs in it.
My amendment does just that. I would like to
thank Colin Mackie from Spike Aware
UK for bringing this evidence to the Bill Committee and for stamping out spiking who have also done a huge amount, and to members who are also
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in this place, you have been doing a lot of work. I'm grateful to my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to my honourable friend. He has deployed a very clear and compelling argument. He
referenced the giving of his remarks
referenced the giving of his remarks about the amendment commanding cross-party support. Can you indicate conversations he has had
indicate conversations he has had
with the Home Office and individuals, and the government response to this? He seems to be making such a compelling case that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
making such a compelling case that it would be helpful if the governance accepted it. I thank my honourable friend. I was on the Bill Committee where a
was on the Bill Committee where a similar motion was put. So I can reference the Minister's response at that time, and I have had a brief word with the Minister outside
word with the Minister outside displays. The government's position
seems to be that the type of activity I am describing is covered elsewhere. It is covered in the
intent to annoy, but I hope I have made it perfectly clear that all
reckless acts are plainly not covered by an intention to annoy.
I
am concerned, I don't for one minute suggest government are wilfully not
wanting this law to work, and to cover all scenarios. But I am left
with the impression they have not sufficiently addressed their mind to this gaping loophole that is staring
them in the face. I would urge them to come forward and if they don't
like my amendment, make an amendment
of their own to deal with the issue. Because if just one person walks free following this law, because
they were able to convicted, they were able to convince a jury that
their actions were not annoying but would have been reckless, then it is
a terrible failure of what this government is trying to do in this bill.
I would urge the Minister to
bill. I would urge the Minister to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
think again. I would urge all across this House to vote for this amendment to force the government's hand. John McDonnell.
14:26
Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John McDonnell. I have tabled amendments 161 with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have tabled amendments 161 with regard to the issues around public order and the policing of demonstrations. Before that, I
demonstrations. Before that, I welcome in the bill the proposals on
fly-tipping. I look forward to the guidance that will be issued to the
various authorities to deal with the fly-tipping issue. I'm attracted by
the amendment moved by the
opposition as well. Largely because, my constituency is plagued with
fly-tipping and I seem to be
followed by a mattress in my constituency in virtually every area I visit.
My amendment is 161. The
reason I have tabled this is to try and get on record the reality of
what is happening to the public order issue with regard to demonstrations. In the Explanatory
Notes, the government has set out the argument that the regular
protest following the events in Israel and Gaza on seventh of October highlighted gaps in public
order legislation. The act of 86 and
23. The proposals have now been brought forward by the government in
response to the challenges in
policing such process.
I've been on virtually every national
demonstration in London since seventh of October organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Movement in
other groups. I understand the pressure that is on the police
service. In fact I have police constituents who had leave cancelled and all the rest because of the
frequency of protests. But the frequency has largely been in response to the depth of concern about what is happening in Gaza.
People have wanted to express their view and one of the ways through a
democratic system is to march and
protest.
On all the demonstrations I have been on, they have been
peaceful, they have been good- natured, and up until a few
instances recently, they have been extremely well policed. What the
government has set out in the notes is the reason new legislation has
been brought forward, in the notes, it relates to three things. We can all agree on basically. The new
criminal offence of climbing up war
memorials. Is position of pyrotechnic at a protest which is dangerous will stop and the other is
concealing identity, the other issues around the concealing of identity that has been referred to
another amendment because that might well have impact on on the exercise
of religious freedoms.
What the
government don't site in these
Explanatory Notes is the issue that
is related in clause 114 which is places of worship and restriction of
protest. In all the demonstrations that have taken place, the national demonstrations in London, there's
never been an incident outside a place of worship. There have been
concerns expressed by some groups. They are largely groups I think have
other motivations rather than
concerns about public order. In fact on the negotiations with the Metropolitan police on each of the
demonstrations, there is a long
discussion of identifying of routes.
Usually overall agreement on
avoiding any areas that can be seen
as contentious. And even where there are some instances where some
distance away from the demonstration there might be a place of worship, for example a synagogue. The
organisers have tried to ensure not just the proper stewarding set doesn't go anywhere near them, in
fact usually a distance, but also that the timing of the services are
that the timing of the services are
The police recently seem to have hardened their attitude.
I think
that is as a result of coming under pressure from some organisations
that might simply not want the
process to go ahead in anyway. Because they take a different attitude to what is happening in
Gaza and Pakistan, if that what is for me, that would be useful, thank
you. So, I am concerned that we try
to solve the problem here that does not exist but it could be solved in
a better way. I am worried about the drafting of the legislation itself,
I will just read the close, the position is in the vicinity of the
place of worship, we need to have clarity about what in the vicinity
means, as I have said, the police
were concerned about a synagogue...
The protesters wanted to march to
the BBC and were concerned about a synagogue which was 10 or 15 minutes
walk away and even then, the protest organiser said, we will make sure we
do not go near. So that no one feels anxious. The way that the clauses
defined, at the moment, I think it
leaves it open to interpretation and
police officers who come under intense pressure from people who might have different motivations than being worried about public
order.
They may intimidate persons
of reasonable firmness, I did not have any idea what reasonable
firmness... I have never seen this definition in legislation before and it might have occurred in court,
setting precedent, but I have not
seen it before, have no idea what that is, in fact, I would not be able to determine what members of
this House, standing of reasonable firmness is on any issue because these matters change with time and
with regard to particular circumstances. What I am worried
about is, if this is left so loosely in the hands of police officers at the moment, I think police officers are in an impossible position about
these definitions.
For a long time,
since demonstrations have been going on, police have tried to consult, asbestos account, but even there,
this demonstrates for me how
contentious issues can become, there are real arguments within the community about$$JOIN.... And on the
board of deputies at the moment, who are normally consulted, the board of
deputies represent certainly not a majority, and the deputies is now
split, he had 38 members of the board contradict the position of the majority of the board. There are
other religious groups, Jewish groups, who have not been consulted
or have only recently been consulted and expressed their concerns about the way that the police are making
decisions.
The reason that I put an
amendment down is because I wanted to get on record some facts around the issue, which is, there have not
been problems regarding places of
worship on any of the national
worship, there is a procedure for avoiding disturbance as much as
possible, that has worked pretty well until very recently. And before
legislation is produced like that, it needs more consultation...
Consultation with a wider community
that has taken place at the moment.
These definitions of vicinity, for reasonable fairness, I think that
opens us up to a system that is more difficult to implement than current
negotiations to take place, which
are taking place... An atmosphere of
goodwill. I worry about this, and I hope that, in the other place, if
nothing else, we might get clearer definitions we might even get, in
advance of that, much more detailed guidance on how this will be
permitted. Otherwise this will cause
more decisions.
I think that there
is an agenda from some who simply want to stop the protests overall,
and that would be, my view, under my democratic right, it would mean
people will take action in different ways, and I would rather we channelled their concerns into forms
of protest that are manageable and
can be used constructively in the expression of people's fees, I propose to the government, between
now and the other place, to think
again about this particular clause, see whether the government can look to clarify some of the definitions,
maybe bring forward guidance and maybe halting the implication of it
until there has been a thorough consultation that has taken place at
the moment, all of us want to see the democratic right to protest being upheld, I've never heard anyone in this House argue against
that, we want to ensure that it is done in a way that does not cause
harm to anybody and does not deny
them of their right to express their opinions.
I think we will see more demonstrations and it is important
we get the management of these demonstrations right through more effective legislation, as proposed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
today. I rise to propose my amendments,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to propose my amendments, four, five, six, seven, eight. And I
four, five, six, seven, eight. And I also thank the members on both sides
also thank the members on both sides of the House for their speeches and proposals. I want to voice my particular support for amendment 21,
14:38
Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
particular support for amendment 21, from the honourable member, to prevent driving licence information
being obtained by the police...
Which is obtained by the police from being used for intrusive facial
recognition. And amendment 164, from the honourable member for Liverpool
Riverside, which removes clause 108 and the ban on face coverings in
protest situations. The honourable member has also put their mitigating
amendments on that subject, 184
quoting exceptions, not just defences for health work and just
face coverings, and amendment 185, and equalities review.
I hope the government will look at all of
these. I welcome the efforts in the
Crime and Policing Bill Bill to FF
protect vulnerable children and I welcome signalling to partridges that coercing, manipulative and
exploiting children into criminal activity is child abuse and will be
treated as such. Criminals are exploiting thousands of vulnerable children with Children In Need data
showing over 15,000 children at risk in 23/24, this is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. The perpetrators of exportation include serious
organised crime gangs which are very well versed in taking advantage of
legislative gaps.
Whilst this Bill takes a huge step forward, there are
areas that must be strengthened if we are to protect children and bring
the perpetrators of this abuse to justice, that is why I have come forward with my amendments. First, I
propose amendment four and five to amend the wording to ensure that the
offence includes activities which put children at significant risk and are linked to criminal conduct but
not themselves criminal offences. Examples include carrying large
amounts of cash, used as a lookout or decoy or guarding unsafe
accommodation alone.
Amendment six expands the definition of activity
to ensure that preparatory act are also captured within the offence.
With reference to the ministers
comments I am grateful to the
engagement with these amendments and
I do welcome the comments but it is not obvious to me how referencing
the facilitation of future offences covers the Gaps that are closed by
amendments four and five. It seems
amendments four and five. It seems
to be only about this consideration
, , I
, I propose amendment , I propose amendment seven, , I propose amendment seven, to
remove clause which currently amounts to a different offence, if
the perpetrator reasonably believes the child is over 80.
And how it
needs to failures in safeguarding responses, specifically but not alone for young, black boys. The
Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear, children cannot consent to their own explanation, this principle must be
upheld by removing this part of the offence. Finally, I propose
amendment eight, to clause 53, to insert the words aged 18 or over, this will ensure children cannot be
criminalised under the new offence of echoing, recognising they are,
more often than not, victims not perpetrators.
The children targeted are often young, extremely
vulnerable, and need protection. Not prosecution. These amendments are
not merely technical, they are essential, they reflect the lived
experiences of children and the findings of the numerous reports and reviews which provide compelling evidence for the need for immoral
best and child-centred legal framework, I urge all members of the
House to support these proposals, together we can take a decisive step towards protecting vulnerable children, even better from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
exploitation. Thank you, before I move on to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, before I move on to the amendment, I want to thank the Minister for the speed at which the
government has moved in bringing this Bill forward, there are important issues around detecting retail workers, tackling shoplifting
retail workers, tackling shoplifting and antisocial, the community I represent that they have been
represent that they have been overlooked. I welcome the urgency of
action on this recognition of the great campaign fought by many unions and the sentiment that these crimes need to be taken more seriously than
14:43
Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
need to be taken more seriously than they have previously. Today I want to focus my time on amendment 19, in
the name of the honourable member for the Isle of Wight East, to
clause 94 of this Bill, which brings forth legislation around spiking. I do so on behalf of one of Mike
statement, I'm going to call her Sarah today, she has been asked to
be kept anonymous. That does not diminish the bravery she has shown
in her work on this.
One of the privileges we get to face as members of this House is meeting
constituents who, in experiencing deeply traumatic, incredibly difficult moments in their lives,
show moments of resilience, depth of character, that lots of us could not
even dream of, and turn that pain into a powerful force for change.
That is deeply true of Sarah, it is true of so many women who have been victims of spiking. Service story is
her own but I know it will resonate with far too many people, here and
across the UK.
A to start on her birthday, like most of us, she was looking forward to celebrating with
friends, organised to go out for drinks and the night was filled with
fun and joy. It ended alone,
traumatised, confused, unable to speak, in a car park outside the venue after she was spiked. Sadly,
this horrific act is one that far too many women across the country
have fallen victim to. After she was spiked, she tried to do what she
could, she lost control of her words, she tried to call out for
help but she couldn't, she left, she went outside, an ambulance was called, they did not know what to do, they did not taken to hospital,
they did not make sure she got the after-care and testing, she was left to fend for herself.
The tragic thing, on top of all of that, was
how difficult that moment must have been for her, the fact that that moment in the car park was not the
only time she was alone. After that, every step of the way, in which she engaged with the police,
authorities, pushed for action, she was ignored, there was insufficient
action, insufficient focus, minimal follow-up and no further prosecution or no further action taken by the
or no further action taken by the
Many of us including myself will be flattened by that.
But not Sarah, she turned that pain into a
mobilising force and a determination to push for action. She has been campaigning for the need for a
specific event in spiking for some time now. She is as excited as I am to see that finally being brought
forward by the government in the bill today. This real meaningful change will mean there is much more focus, much more action, and
hopefully much greater awareness of the damage that spiking can do to people. The seriousness of the offence it reflects, hopefully the
seriousness of consequence that will now follow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the member for giving way. And was brilliant articulation
way. And was brilliant articulation of Sarah's story which, for many of us, including myself as an MP, is not uncommon. In Darlington before I was elected as the MP I raised this
was elected as the MP I raised this issue as a number of people had been affected by spiking. Does the honourable Member agree with me that
honourable Member agree with me that bringing this into law today is so important because so many women and
important because so many women and vulnerable people, the act of not being believed that they were spiked
**** Possible New Speaker ****
being believed that they were spiked as one of the big barriers to seeking justice. I thank my honourable Friend. A lot of us have been inspired by
lot of us have been inspired by campaigning and that is powerful as
campaigning and that is powerful as to why. The lack of belief that many victims of spiking are currently encountering and it is that lack of
encountering and it is that lack of belief that we are looking to completely undercut to make it an offence today.
Sarah reached out to
me because as excited as she is about the bill, she wants to make sure we are delivering it at full
speed. It is that same motivation
that has brought your member to bring for the amendment today. I want to thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. I
know from conversations she has had that they are confident that as
currently drafted, the bill would capture the full list of possible offences. As such this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
might... I am grateful to the honourable Member particularly for setting out
Member particularly for setting out the particular case with his constituent who I know was up here
constituent who I know was up here
in Westminster yesterday. Does he not accept that it is those of us elected in the chamber to make
decisions, and assurances from officials that cannot be articulated in this house, and I'm looking for
that articulation, is not a good reason not to back my amendment?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reason not to back my amendment? I thank him for the intervention and for the work he has done through bringing forward the amendment but
bringing forward the amendment but at Committee stage. Not wanting to
at Committee stage. Not wanting to put words into the mouths of the
Frontbench I'm sure they will be able to articulate some of that official view back to him in summing
up. I'm sure that as we go through this process, even that I know she cares so passionately about this issue, as she continues to test and
issue, as she continues to test and
understand.
We own it to Sarah and other victims to make sure we get this right. I know she is as keen as
I am to make sure this happens. And to test the view before we finally get the bill into law and ensure we are taking the fullness of action
needed to tackle spiking. That fullness of action is needed because the issue Sarah encountered, the
challenges far too many people face are not really ones we can solve just with legislation. That is a
very important part of why we are acting, and while we are discussing the amendment.
That is why I really
hope that if this amendment does
finally get past, it won't be the
end of the story. Further action, working with police chiefs, and
making sure this is really drilled
into their strategy as part of a national strategy to reduce violence against women and girls. To make sure forces are appropriately prioritising this, and offices are
properly trained to make sure
crucial deadlines are not missed before crucial evidence is deleted. And to make sure that right across
the country, there is not a single
force that is not taking this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
I will certainly be reaching out to
both of my Police and Crime Commissioners to make sure they are doing that. I would welcome thoughts
of the Minister as to how we as a government can make sure we use all the powers and tools at our disposal
to make sure police forces right across the country are also delivering. Alongside this aim to deter possible perpetrators, it is
important that the penalties in this legislation are well understood. I would also welcome her thoughts on
how we can make sure disseminating the action we are underlining today
to ensure that right across the country, no one is under any illusion that spiking is a deeply
serious offence that will be treated
as such by this government and will be treated as such by the police who will have the full force of the law.
For far too long, victims like Sarah and people right across the country have been left exposed to spiking. I left feeling that they are victims
going through experiences alone. Fantastic organisations like Spike
UK, to bring them together to mobilise the need for change. It is
only through action nationally and delivered throughout police forces across the country that we can
finally do justice and finally do justice to people like Sarah who feel they have been suffering alone
for too long.
I'm glad to see this legislation going forward and glad to see this and look forward to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
working with the Minister to make sure we deliver this in an ambitious way. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. As we have heard, the bill has a
As we have heard, the bill has a broad scope. I just want to recognise that the scope of the bill is evidenced by the breadth and
is evidenced by the breadth and number of amendments and clauses. It is worth reminding ourselves gently that a number of these measures were
14:52
Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
that a number of these measures were carried over from the current Criminal Justice Bill which sadly
fell due to the general election almost a year ago. Obviously there
are new clauses and new amendments, I hope the Minister is in listening
mode and in change mode, and in the mode of willingness to work across the house and accepting some of these amendments. I think it will go
a long way towards further improving this piece of legislation. Having
read through the bill, it goes right to the heart of the communities that we seek to serve and represent, and
I know there are topics in the bill that regularly popped into my inbox, and I'm sure into that of colleagues
as well.
Two specific areas I want
to cover today. The first is around fly-tipping and littering, something that I have spoken on many occasions
in this chamber since I was first
elected. I mentioned support to the Shadow Minister, the member of Parliament. And West, for his amendment and clauses. Because in an
earlier intervention, about the cost
of litter, I think I said £1 million
and actually meant £1 billion. If
that could be firmly corrected because it is a big difference was the principle is the same, it is money that could go back into our
communities.
£1 billion spent on managing litter and fly-tipping. It is a huge amount of money and a huge
amount of services for Constituencies up and down the country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does her calculation is of the £1 billion account for the feeling of
billion account for the feeling of degradation of pride in areas where people fly tip and the failures of
people fly tip and the failures of local services to be able to afford to collect and clean-up this rubbish
to collect and clean-up this rubbish tip on the side of our roads? I would wonder if there is a multiplier effect of how people
multiplier effect of how people actually feel about their areas with fly-tipping.
To I think the honourable lady makes a really
honourable lady makes a really important point. There is a cost that is very difficult to evaluate. There is a social cost, a community
There is a social cost, a community cost. I have fantastic volunteers
cost. I have fantastic volunteers groups, and others who will go out and litter pick. I don't mind going
and litter pick. I don't mind going out and helping myself as well, and there is a great sense of community coming together. There's nothing more frustrating than doing a street
and you walk back and you find that
one of the tosses has tossed more
litter out of the car.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable lady. I don't think she was pointing at her Shadow Minister when she was
Shadow Minister when she was accusing someone of being a litter tosser. I think it was a dramatic
gesture! Does she agree that building on what my honourable
building on what my honourable friend said, when people see overgrown verges, general disrepair that people are walking through
that people are walking through decline. When they see that they feel hopeless, just about their
feel hopeless, just about their communities that they take pride in, but the ability of the council and
but the ability of the council and elected officials to act on their most immediate priorities.
Would she
most immediate priorities. Would she agree with me that when we install a plan in place, by fixing these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
plan in place, by fixing these problems, we help to create the confidence that a better community can be delivered. It is a very important point
about pride in where we live. As I travel around the country, I often
take a mental note of the number of potholes that I drive across. It is
very notable that from one authority
to another, going back to the point about litter and communities, the honourable gentleman makes a very
important point.
My local authority
have been successfully prosecuting
some litter bugs, people that have been, I have a couple of examples I picked up on social media this week.
Individuals who have been treating the high street for their own personal litter bin. The local authority has gone after them and
find them. That sends a very strong message. I think there is a bit more
that I believe we can do because I think much of it is about clearing
up after these people, but it is also about, is there enough of a
deterrent to stop this happening? A lot of it in my view is down to lack of respect for the community, and
antisocial behaviour, for want of a
better word.
And I do think it is a burden that we should not be expecting the taxpayer to continue
to keep paying. We have got to this point now we have reached a tipping
point. And letting people walk away with just a slap on the wrist, we need something more than that.
Whether it is bin strikes, we see those in Birmingham, rural fly-
tipping, littering, I do think a lot of our communities are now feeling absolutely fed up and often
overwhelmed. I support the amendments that my honourable friend
has put down because I think what they do, taken together, is from a
serious and joined up response that helps protect our communities, supports those who want to keep it
clean, but also it helps to protect the local environment and the
wildlife as well.
Similarly, it is often local farmers who face the
burden of fly-tipping. When fly-
tipping happens on their land, the cost of removing it falls on the local farmer. That hardly seems fair
that they are left to foot the bill for waste they did not create. That
is where in terms of amendment 172 which is about clean-up costs, this
seeks to address that. I have heard time and time again from frustrated
landowners and farmers that
currently the system, it punishes the victims of fly-tipping so often
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and not the perpetrators. I thank the lazy for giving way. Does she have any thoughts on the
Does she have any thoughts on the idea that people who actually enlist
people to take away some of their rubbish so they can hire somebody privately, often be held accountable
for that third party company, dumping the rubbish illegally, and
dumping the rubbish illegally, and so people seem at odds with what they are supposed to do at the moment?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moment? The old lady makes an important
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The old lady makes an important point, and I think it is something that we see locally. The enforcement
that we see locally. The enforcement matters, but also there has to be a strong, I hate to use the word
education, but almost like educating or reminding Constituents that if
somebody comes to you to say there will clear rubbish away, you need to think carefully about where they are putting that rubbish. We have examples of fridges dumps, of
mattresses dumped, of driving down
Bridal Lane last year and there was a whole vanload of rubbish fly-
tipping just the middle-of-the-road.
The road actually had to be blocked.
It is outrageous. And it needs to stop. I also support amendments 173
and 174 around cost liability
guidance because these are building on that same principle, but those who caused the mess should be charged and pay for cleaning it up.
It should not fall on stretched local authorities and private
landowners to clean-up the aftermath
landowners to clean-up the aftermath
I do think any deterrent will also
be limited.
Finally, on litter, I think we need to start looking at penalty points on licences for those
who are caught throwing litter out of cars, again, a deterrent,
something to remind people that it is not acceptable to throw litter,
indiscriminate, and out of the car. I know that mindful to the driver, I
think the driver has to take responsibility for the people who are passengers in the car. I am
going to leave it there, because there are some amendments and
clauses that I hope to speak to and catch your attention tomorrow, but I
think today, as indicated a lot of cross-party support for seeking to
do more to tackle fly-tipping and litter, which is a scourge on the community.
15:02
Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, lawlessness, antisocial, street crime, shoplifting, have dragged our communities down. When people
believe they can act with impunity without fear of apprehension or respect for others, we need Parliament to come down hard to
restore Law & Order to give the
police the resources they need to make StreetSafe again. Can I take the opportunity to welcome the bill,
to write the years of damage and disregard caused by the previous
government. My focus is on street racing, a problem that stretches across the country but has become a
curse in my constituency because speeding along the stretch of the a
57, the bypass that runs onto my honourable friend constituency, in
Rother Valley.
These are unofficial road racing events organised by
social media with people meeting up in the car parks, staging races up
and down the a 57, attracting huge crowds who come to witness the
speeds... The flashy cars with loud
exhausts. Living close to the a 57 can hear the noise, the screeching of towers but they are terrified that they or a family member will
get caught up in the races in the
drive home. The fear of an accident is all pervading.
There have in deaths across the country, people
who have turned up to reach -- watch
of the racing, like a 19-year-old and a 16-year-old and 19-year-old
Sophie Smith. Young lives, needlessly lost.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank her for giving way, she is making an important point, in the
is making an important point, in the spirit of openness, I perhaps did not always drive responsibly as a
not always drive responsibly as a young man as I do now, whilst she is making important points, there is an
making important points, there is an educational piece that we can use here, I wonder if she will join me
here, I wonder if she will join me in commending the work of the under 17 car club, which teaches young
17 car club, which teaches young drivers about the danger of driving in that fashion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in that fashion. I thank him for the intervention,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for the intervention, my concern is where these car racing events are unorganised, they are
events are unorganised, they are done in order to show off, show how
fast cars can speed, how noisy they can be, I think there needs to be much stronger action, I am concerned
that there will be further deaths or accidents if the police are not given the powers to deal with it. I
visited residents who told me their lives are a living hell, nerves on
edge every weekend, they hear the noise, the houses have become
**** Possible New Speaker ****
viewing platforms for the crowds. Thank you for bringing this point to Parliament today, I have experienced what she is describing
experienced what she is describing on my own Street in Henley where we had a specific problem of street
had a specific problem of street racing, boy racing, and I phoned the police myself, on several occasions,
police myself, on several occasions, I was told, we know it is happening
I was told, we know it is happening but we do not have the resources.
Eventually, after they got so many calls, they did come and act. I
calls, they did come and act. I think they put one in place, some sort of prevention order for antisocial behaviour, that can only be done one time, not over an
be done one time, not over an extended period, does she feel that powers should strengthened for the
powers should strengthened for the police to stop this intimidating and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
antisocial behaviour. I agree, this is why I am raising it today, you talk about public
space protection orders, I will go on to that shortly, but I think the law needs to be strengthened to give
the police stronger powers in order to deal with this. It is happening right across the country. It is
being spread by people using social media, encrypted social media, to
organise these groups. I have been working with the district and the
police on this issue, the council have joined forces with Rotherham
Council and they are bringing forward the public space protection order, so that it covers the whole
of the a 57 outside all the way
through to Rotherham.
It is to prohibit cars cruising, giving the
police the ability to serve prosecution or fines. In the
meantime, I have worked with the police to install a CCTV camera at a key point on the route, there are
plans to have a second one put up,
the cameras are being used to collect data on vehicles who turn up at the events and they are issuing pre-enforcement letters, being sent
to car owners, they are not
necessarily... The drivers, because
often police find the owners of the cars can be the parents and young people have borrowed the cars.
The
notice is being served on their parents, which I think is just as good. Police say this is helping to
reduce involvement. Police also tell me they have that dedicated staffing
into patrolling the letter a 57 for the next four weekends, and this
will include fines, seizures and reporting to the court. They are
also sharing life intelligence of vehicles moving around the country to be proactive and stop decreasing
to be proactive and stop decreasing
before they happen and they have been successful in stopping racing before it starts.
Like myself, the
police are fearful that people could die or be seriously injured and regard this as a high level
priority. I am pleased to say, they do regard it as a priority in my area and I'm disappointed they have
not had... Take that consideration in the honourable members constituency. It is a serious issue,
I would say, most weekends come Friday, Saturday or Sunday night,
cars are present. Sometimes just meeting in an empty supermarket car
park to compare their vehicles.
Other times, taking the opportunity
to race. I have been out to look at these cars myself, to see who they
are, at first I thought they were... They were using it in order to
engage in crime, but the whole focus
to show off these super -- souped up vehicle. I strongly believe stronger
action needs to be done before we have debts, we have already had debts, often these are the people
who come out to witness the speeding, I am calling for stronger action to prevent that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend. With their Crime and Policing Bill,
With their Crime and Policing Bill, the increased orders, to help tackle
antisocial, like respect orders, do
you think that could be a vehicle... A vehicle to help address the
gathering that you have articulated.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I agree with the member, I think that could be used
member, I think that could be used and I also believe that the crime and -- Crime and Policing Bill
and -- Crime and Policing Bill strengthens the ability to seize motor vehicle is when used to cause annoyance. Because this is a
annoyance. Because this is a nationwide problem, I asked the
Minister for private discussion to consider the bill to see if it can be strengthened to make it cannot
organise, promote or attend these road racing events.
I want to
welcome the Bill because it respects and recognises the risks shopworkers
face. My local residents... My
constituent went to buy a pint of milk at Easter, he was queueing up for the milk, and somebody rushed in
and swept the whole shelf of Easter
eggs off the shelf and into a bag, call it supermarket sweep, the new
form of shoplifting, it is not sneaky, it is very public, people
stealing food to order, it is high
stealing food to order, it is high
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cost food, worth a lot of money. I have been in my constituency and witnessed people coming in and doing what she described, so often
doing what she described, so often that it is now a common source of conversation between me and the
assistance working there. Does she agree, the campaign to protect shopworkers, that has been going on
shopworkers, that has been going on for years brilliant campaign and it
is excellent the government will introduce the right responsibilities for people and the punishments for
for people and the punishments for people who commit crimes against shopworkers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
shopworkers. Usdaw was the first union I joined and I support their campaign.
joined and I support their campaign. I very much share the fear, when it
I very much share the fear, when it shopworkers has, when working in a shop, there is nothing they can do,
they have to sit or stand and watch the crime happened. For fear of being assaulted or abused. That is the advice that Arsenal have given
them, the advice the management gives them, I feel that the law has
to be strengthened to protect them, they have to go to work every day, to face that fear is something that
creates stress and unacceptable for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them to do that. I thank my honourable friend for
giving way, she is giving a powerful speech, in my constituency, I regularly talk to shopworkers who
are experiencing this scourge of shoplifting... Wholesale looting, they are being made to feel unsafe.
they are being made to feel unsafe. I think of the staff of Tesco, the staff of Co-op, the staff of the
staff of Co-op, the staff of the Tesco on the Grove, in Southbourne.
I also think of the owner of a wine shop has a hockey stick beside them
to chase away shoplifters who are 20 take carts of wine bottles.
Would she agree with me, it is very good
she agree with me, it is very good news that our labour Government is introducing a new offence of
introducing a new offence of assaulting retail workers and ending the effective decolonisation of
shoplifting and will issue commend the Co-op Party who, like Usdaw, have campaigned so hard for this law.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I wholeheartedly agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I wholeheartedly agree with him, it is the Co-op Party who have campaigned as well. It is so
have campaigned as well. It is so important and I very much welcome the action this government is taken,
the action this government is taken, it has gone on for too long. This is
it has gone on for too long. This is the best step to do that. What also
the best step to do that. What also concerns shopworkers they have to deal with problems with antisocial.
For example, in Greggs, I have been
For example, in Greggs, I have been told about how young people coming
and take the food from the cabinets and they feel so fearful in that shop, they have not taken the Covid
screens down because they do not want to feel attacked... Be attacked. The intimidation is not
acceptable. I have spoken to an optician, where the management
scored their staff out of the workplace and to their cars on a regular basis, it was bad earlier in
the winter, when I went to the opticians to talk to the staff and
the management myself.
I was so concerned, I have had meetings with
the council and police to tackle this issue face on. I very much
welcome this government's commitment to increasing policing, more police
in the town centre, everybody tells me they want to see more police
walking the street so that they feel safe, so they can make that choice about where they shop. I do not want people to think about the safety
when they are going to buy town centres. I think today priority they
know where the police are, and they feel safe as they go.
I think this
Bill goes to the heart of many of
the issues that have broken our country and I very much believe we are doing what we can to prepare it -- repair it.
15:23
Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
There are a huge number of people
directly impacted by this Bill in
Scotland. Road traffic law is one of those areas. Antisocial behaviour, involving vehicles, has been raised
involving vehicles, has been raised
And some powers around vehicle licensing are reserved. It is
important to remember that although a lot of this antisocial behaviour
is committed by young people, there
are many older drivers and users of vehicles that commit antisocial
behaviour.
The vast majority, it has a big impact on people and there is
a perception that they are all young people involved, but the vast majority of young people do not
engage in violent behaviour. In the long-term trends shows significant
reduction. But because of the nature of road traffic offences and
antisocial behaviour, it has a significant impact, and that
amplifies the effect for the
community. In 2025/26 the SNP increased police funding to £1.64
billion, an increase from the previous year to support police
capacity and capability.
And there is an additional £57 million innings
additional resource funding. One of the areas that police officers and
communities are raising with me regularly is the use of e-bikes. The
all illegal use of e-bikes is broadly a reserve metaphor that UK
government. To illegally use e-bikes
and an electrically assisted pedal cycle, the electromotive should not be able to compel a bike to
travelling more than 15 miles an
hour. Police Scotland has published
**** Possible New Speaker ****
advice to provide clarity including safe and responsible use. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The old gentleman is making an excellent speech. This is a serious problem around the country. In my
problem around the country. In my constituency, we have had residents concerned by speeding e-bikes at
concerned by speeding e-bikes at various times. And our local forces
various times. And our local forces now taking more action and I'm pleased to hear Scotland is also
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taking more action. Thank you for that intervention. There is work going on through the
There is work going on through the
There is work going on through the country. I should have said that there is amendment to in case I have caused confusion. We also recognise
caused confusion. We also recognise they have been follow-up calls for legislation and licensing at the
heart of where the amendment goes.
The SNP has also signed a similar amendment during the committee stage
about off-road.
Everyone who uses roads and paths is responsible for respecting other road and path
users, and to follow the rules and guidance of the Highway Code. Unfortunately there is still a
significant minority of road users
who are not respecting the rights of other road users. Who are writing motorised vehicles illegally on our
roads and paths, and in the worst cases, have caused serious injury
and death, either to themselves or to other people, and causing huge
heartache for families.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member for giving way and I commend him on the
important point that it is often young people were using the off-road by, Otoniel a tearing up communities and green spaces, they also could be
and green spaces, they also could be a very severe risk to themselves. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a very severe risk to themselves. I commend the honourable member for bringing that points to the House because it is so important. Thank you for that intervention.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for that intervention. It goes to the point made by the Liberal Democrat member who talked
Liberal Democrat member who talked about his experience as a young
about his experience as a young driver compared to being a more responsible driver now. Most people will recognise that in themselves.
will recognise that in themselves. Some of it is inexperienced, some of
Some of it is inexperienced, some of it is plain stupidity sometimes. But the education piece is very important to help tackle at and make
sure that we understand the consequences potentially for themselves and for other people as
well.
There is a particularly good education piece that is done in the north-east of Scotland where
children from all over the north- east of Scotland went to a large
venue and was given a hard time and pretty blunt message including
videos of the most serious incidents where people had either been
seriously injured and killed in road accidents. When they went into a
venue they saw a car and it had been
crushed and it was a tough experience. I know lots of young
people came out with respect towards driving and using motor vehicles.
For off-road and e-bikes, the SNP support Police Scotland and dealing with issues on this. The Scottish
Government is considering ways forward in partnership with Police
Scotland and local authorities and related safety issues. This includes
to doing to raise with the UK government and a lot of work has gone behind-the-scenes between the
devolved Administration and the UK government. I welcome that work from
the Minister and it has been very helpful. That ongoing collaboration
ensures that Scottish interests are considered in any decisions affecting road safety.
We are also
considering further options on a cross-party basis, and also community engagement on the
potential for mobile safety cameras, to deter registered vehicle speeding
on public roads. The amendment course on the government to conduct
a review, a consultation, on
licensing and tracking ownership of
electric e-bikes. In which it requires many cases to be insured. A
requires many cases to be insured. A
final plea that could be made to the insurance sector, I think they could
be doing a lot more to make it clear to people what insurance covers and what it does not cover.
And
modification of vehicles that the honourable member for Bassetlaw
raised earlier on. I don't recall seeing a great deal about that and
the insurance documents. I think they could be a lot more public
awareness. But it would be good to help to tackle that both the UK government and the Scottish Government.
15:23
Jack Abbott MP (Ipswich, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be speaking to a number of
clauses. If I may I will set a tiny bit of context as to why this bill
is so important for my town. At the heart of the community of Ipswich, neighbours who support each other,
small businesses serving the town centre, they are seeing real shoots
of recovery. There is no doubt that when I was proud to be elected as the MP for the area, regenerating
our town is not just about economics, it is about rebuilding
the community.
And that is what this
bill helps to deliver. And I welcome the government's new clauses and
amendments being debated to today. I
would gently say that the former
minister tries to claim credit for a number of the changes today, I don't think the argument is that if only
we had 15 years rather than 14 will really wash with many people. The challenges that we have spoken about
today did not happen overnight. They were years in the making. So whilst
I appreciate the conversations we have had, we need to acknowledge the
years of suffering for our residents and businesses.
In the emergency
services. With those years behind us, can I welcome the amendment
brought forward today and this bill
gives the police power they need to tackle mobile phone thefts and
goods. And as has been mentioned, we are scrapping the £200 shoplifting
threshold which disproportionately hit small independent businesses in my town and across the country. It
introduces tough new respect order to tackle the very worst antisocial
behaviour offenders that means our towns and cities are no longer blighted by the same offenders over
and over again.
If you speech any retail worker in any corner of our town they will tell you shocking
litany of abuse and harassment and even violence. The co-operative
party has done incredible work in
this area. This is clearly not part of their job and that is why the
bill creates a specific offence of assaulting a shop worker. New clause 52 introduced today will have a new
offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence. It will give the police necessary powers to act whenever an individual
enters a premise with the intention
to commit a serious criminal act was be that burglary, theft, assault, or criminal damage.
For businesses in
towns like Ipswich, this matters hugely. I regularly speak to small
business owners and retail workers were proud to serve their communities but who have seen first
hand the impact of break-ins and antisocial behaviour on our high
streets. New clause 52 gives the police the tools to intervene early before Hamas done and when there is
clear intent to commit crime. The amendment extends this protection to
those who protect us. That is why I strongly support new clauses 60, 61,
and 62, to strengthen the law to ensure that emergency workers are properly protected from the threats, intimidation, and abuse they all too
often face whilst simply doing their
job to serve the public.
For too many of our frontline workers, paramedics, NHS staff and firefighters, they face unacceptable
abuse. I will be frank, I think it is utterly disgusting that those who
are serving our communities and our country, sometimes with great
sacrifice and selflessness, are all too often suffering from such
unacceptable behaviour. I'm sure everyone in this chamber has had awful stories of emergency workers
who endured abuse, on account of their race or religion. These new
clauses make it clear about the consequences for an individual if they engage in such bigotry.
As I
said earlier, we should never accept this as simply part of the job. We need new measures to ensure that
when people threaten those workers, there are clear criminal consequences. I say directly to
those frontline workers, we stand with you. You deserve not just our
gratitude but our full support. You protect us, so we will protect you.
Another sad indictment of the last few years as the absolute impunity for violence against women and
girls. I speak to so many women in Ipswich you feel uncomfortable particularly at night.
Women have
been told to keep an eye on a drink for fear of spiking. In victims of
other heinous crimes, fighting not the perpetrator but a system stacked
against them. I support stronger stalking protection orders and new
offence of spiking has already been
mentioned today. This bill is about more than just new laws was it is about faster justice, stronger protections and proper accountability for police and
councils when victims are let down. That is why I also support new clause 59 which removes time limits
for civil claims and child sexual abuse cases.
The law should never compound the suffering of victims
simply because too much time has
passed. New clauses 54 and 56 also provide much longer protections for
children and. The abuse and coercion of children is a grotesque crime and
those who are using children to carry out criminal operations should face the full force of the law. We know this abuse can be pernicious,
and the tactics used are constantly evolving. These new clauses in other
parts of the bill seeks to tackle this issue head on.
These amendments also put victims where they should
have always been, at the heart of the legal system. It sends a clear message. We were no longer tolerate
survivors being shut out by the technicalities of the system. Their voices matter, the experiences
matter, and their right to seek justice matters. Public confidence
does not just rest on tough talk or new offences, it rests on a system that people trust. Trust that police will respond, trust that victims
will be supported, trust that those who commit crimes will be held to
account.
Trust the powers granted are used fairly and with
accountability. The safety of our community cannot rest on central government alone. That is why I
welcome the focus of this bill on partnership not passing quibbles between agencies but solving this
together. The lateral initiative matches our local initiative, I've
been working with neighbourhood initiatives were put in place a ground breaking partnerships to
tackle street drinking. This bill is proof that if we work together we can deliver on every single level.
can deliver on every single level.
We bring forward these plans to bring forward and make a difference to the lives of people in my town
and others, I am only too aware that our communities are still divided. They rarely offer solutions and
policies, instead they want to feed resentment and pit neighbour against
neighbour. I know that we are stronger when we stand together, not
defined by fear, not set against one another but united in our determination to make our town and country safer, fairer, more secure
country safer, fairer, more secure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am planning to call the minister at 4:50, which will give
15:31
Rt Hon David Mundell MP (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
minister at 4:50, which will give the remaining members about five minutes each.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support amendments of
19 in the name of my honourable
19 in the name of my honourable friend and I hope the Minister will listen to the compelling case that
he made and the compelling case the honourable member made on the issue
honourable member made on the issue of spiking more generally. I am speaking because I want to put on record my support for my
record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy, and
constituents, Colin and Mandy, and their organisation, Spite Aware UK.
their organisation, Spite Aware UK. -- Spike. No one to comprehend. The police knocked on their door to tell
police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died from a drug overdose at college and then to subsequently find out
that in fact his drink had been spiked, his non-alcoholic drink, by
five ecstasy tablets. There was, as
other members have alluded to, there
was no support from the. -- Support from the police. They subsequently
apologised for the treatment.
I am
talking about how the focused efforts to make sure the experience
efforts to make sure the experience
was not shared by anyone else. It is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill. The points to be made
is about certainty and the amendment brings certainty the situation. I
have been in this House with previous ministers who had been told by officials that spiking was
covered by legislation. There was
not a need for a specific... I think in relation to the restrictions in
time, I had better not.
There was no need for specific legislation on spiking because it was already
covered. What the campaigning, including my colleague, the member
for Bradford South, the deputy
speaker, former colleagues, they demonstrated that it was not a specific measure and if we're going to have one, it must bring
certainty. Part of that certainty is for the benefit of the police and
others. So that the police now that the reckless behaviour is also a
crime. -- know. Does not have to be
any doubt when they arrive at a venue, unable to articulate what has
happened to them.
It allows
campaigning to be very clear that, whatever circumstances a drink is
spiked or a person is injected, that is a crime. And I think it is that
clarity, which is why this amendment are another amendment that might be brought forward in the other place,
brought forward in the other place,
would be so important. And that, I think, is what we have to bring about. It can lead to the greater
training of police, the greater training of NHS workers, to be able
to support people in a spiking situation.
The final point is in relation to Scotland. I think we
need to have a common approach
across the UK. It should not matter whether you are spiked in Glasgow or
Manchester, or Cardiff. That does not disrespect the devolution settlement of the different
approaches of the criminal justice system at the effect and impact
should be the same wherever you are and the criminality should be the same, whether the behaviour is
intentional or reckless. intentional or reckless.
15:35
Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will skip through the many amendments that I want to support. A
amendments that I want to support. A
few of them make a real difference to people in my constituency. My
honourable friend was talking about street racing and I want to echo the sentiments. Unfortunately, we had a
Formula 1 driver who said success was based on practising on the grid roads in Milton Keynes, which
unfortunately encouraged many people
to race there. In terms of stalking and spiking, the most egregious part
of spiking as premeditation, sourcing materials and using it on a
sourcing materials and using it on a
person.
This is not a spur of the moment crime. There is significant premeditation that comes into it. One major issue that we have had in
Milton Keynes is with organisation
betting outside the shopping centres. It's organised by gangs and people can look like they might be
homeless or soon to be homeless. -- Organised begging. These people are
closed by the council and exploited by the very people that actually
have a rotor for which corner and fit shop they can sit in front of act which period of time and the majority of the proceeds which are
donated goes to the organised crime network and those individuals are exploited in other ways as well.
And
exploited in other ways as well. And
Is important in addressing it for the true crime it is, not those begging but those organising the
begging. I rise in front of NC55,
which is a special measure for witnesses. I think it's important. I have had from my honourable friend and many people have experienced sexual abuse but do not come forward
for years and years and so NC59, removing those legislation, is
important. I would also like to
address the remarks made from the honourable member in terms of domestic abuse and it was a great
speech and put very well and then around NC71, in terms of employment
within law enforcement, we must recognise that confidence in law
enforcement is a long-term law.
Considering the case of Sarah
Everard and people are calling it at their most vulnerable because of
experienced sexual abuse or rape or stalking - deleted all that
regardless of which law enforcement agency they come across, they will be treated in accordance with the law, not with natural biases, which
we have seen. My final point is that in terms of the confidence in policing, we must make sure that all
the enforcement is done with clarity of the law and not because a
particular campaign, as we have seen
in the enforcement of the 1861 act, which we will debate later.
which we will debate later.
15:39
Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I was fortunate to sit at the appeal committee and we all share the common goal of tackling crime in
a meaningful way so we can make
people feel safe in communities again. I am a liberal, focused on community, and a focus on people feeling safe and we must foster strong communities and improve the
quality of life and freedom of opportunity that everyone in the country should enjoy. I'm grateful
to the government for their willingness to engage on the point that we are made and particularly the right honourable member for
Birmingham and the honourable member for Kingston.
Despite several
productive consultations, there are several important additions which were rejected at the build committee
stage. This is why I rise to speak.
Seven of those closest to my heart regarding community policing, knife
regarding community policing, knife
crime, stocking -- stalking, there are also issues with freedom of oppression and the rate for healthcare for women. I congratulate the courage of the honourable member
and I would encourage those clauses to be considered if they come back
from the Lords, if not before.
I 19,
spiking - I start by supporting the amendment tabled by the honourable member for the Isle of Wight East.
Spiking is a horrendous event and an exploitation which must be taken
with the seriousness. The evidence session that we heard from Colin Mackie in the build committee and he
The committee and it can be done as a prank, rather than down to cause harm. His son died in a suspected
incident in the club and he has since campaigned alongside his partner for a change in the law to stop similar incidents from occurring.
I also thank the
honourable member for raising broader concerns about spiking and we agree that the measures have to
take place further, including A&E awareness, so that testing is taken and further evidence can be
maintained. Then we can secure
convictions. Amendment 19 is a sensible and necessary qualification
in what seems to be painfully
obvious and what matters in spiking cases is the recklessness and callousness of the act itself so I
encourage members to support this
amendment at a vote.
I met 160, I am pleased to support and also relating to the clauses which will be
discussed tomorrow and taken together, these form a vital safeguard on the right to protest
and they would allow facial recognition technology to be subjected to proper scrutiny of a
regulatory framework and would enshrine the right to protest. For
many in campaigning groups like Liberty, these are long overdue
measures and provide much-needed clarity to police forces as they go about using new technology to fight
crime.
This is something that people are asking for and I look forward to the briefing later this month the Minister on that subject. In
particular, I would remind the House that people from Hong Kong in the committee about the impact of regulated use of facial recognition
technology on the streets, and fear that, a compromise, it would be a
powerful tool for the Chinese Communist Party in terms of the oppression of people from Hong Kong.
Could happen on our streets. Facial recognition technology can be powerful for police forces as they
try to keep us safe as with any new technology with capacity to infringe
on everyday liberties, must be regularly properly.
The liberal Democrats have a proud tradition of standing up for civil liberties and
argue that we must never sleepwalk
into delivering them. This amendment is in the tradition, making sure the
technology cannot be used in real- time for biometric identification unless certain conditions are satisfied, not least preventing
serious crimes under the Serious Crime Act and public safety threats
and searching for missing a penalty will. Also, it must be subject to authorisation with a judge to
approve the use, scope, purpose, and
these would make for safer use of the tool and protect civil liberties and keeping us safe from crime.
and keeping us safe from crime.
15:44
Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to speak with the time remaining to amendment nine,
tabled by the honourable member for
Rotherham and is brought across the House and supported by many members, including myself. We welcome the
pro-British to limit the ability of sex offenders to change their name and many members welcome that. I pay
tribute to the tireless campaigners
and we welcome the event put
together by one of my constituents. She is a survivor and speaks on the likely impact of child sexual abuse
and her aim is to deal with campaigns like this and she set up a charity project that is based on research that shows 90% of child sexual abuse is carried out by
persons known to the victim and we are right in the House to focus, as
we have done in the past, one online abuse and abuse by strangers, but we must not forget that 90% is carried
out by people that the victim knows.
And the work raises good practice
and aims to train educators and Emma Jane brought to my attention the
loophole in the law that allows sex offenders to change their name and potentially continue offending untraced. I manga strength and
provision for name change in the bill requiring sex offenders to notify police of the intention to
change their name seven days before
Even if the government doesn't adopt this amendment either here or any
other place, it is important for the government to monitor the successes of the changes already in the bill.
I hope the government will monitor that very closely and bring forward
new legislation if the loophole is enclosed in the way the government
intends. Child sexual abuse is a wicked and despicable crime in the
government's right to bring forward
amendments. I asked if the government continue to follow this bill through to its implementation
and monitor that extremely closely as this is a matter important to many members of this House.
15:46
Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am very grateful to honourable
member's for setting out the case for their respective amendments this
afternoon and I will seek to respond
to as many of these as I can. The shadow Minister has amendments 167 through 183 in this particular
group. The considered response that
I am a serial did at that stage, but I do want to pick out a couple of
the amendments he highlighted in his speech. Amendment 175, the possession of weapon with intent to
use unlawful violence and amendment
175 seeks to increase the maximum sentence for possession of a bladed
article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence from four years to 14 years, however
increasing the maximum penalty for this offence in isolation without looking at other possession offences
would result in inconsistency in the law in this area.
We have set out the maximum penalty for the
possession with intent to four years imprisonment to be consistent with
the maximum penalties of all knife
crime related offences. We will establish if they are still
appropriate. The shadow Minister stated that the independent review of terrorism legislation recommended that the sentence for the new
offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause violence be substantially increased. In his
recent report, he recommended
creating a new offence where an
individual intends to kill more than two people.
He stated that if this offence is created, there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence
for the proposed event of possessing an article with violent intent. As I've stated, the government is
currently considering creating such an offence so to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing an article with
violent intent is actually unnecessary. We will debate this further tomorrow when we consider
the honourable member's new clause. The honourable member also referred
to amendments 172 and 173. This is around persons being responsible for
fly-tipping to be liable for the cost of cleaning up.
Where local authorities prosecute fly-tippers,
upon conviction a cost order can already be made by the courts or
landowners cost can be recovered from the perpetrator. While sentencing is a matter for the
courts, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly- tipping prevention group, which
Defra chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of
waste. We will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9.
Amendment 174 around personal drivers licences for fly-tipping,
while sentencing is a matter for the court, I will ask my counterparts in
Defra who are responsible for the policy and fly-tipping, to consider the benefits of enabling the endorsement of penalty point, to consider the benefits of enabling
the endorsement of penalty .4 fly- tippers.
The honourable member for Hazel Grove spoke to amendment 160
on the use of live facial recognition. It is a valuable policing tool which helps to keep people safe. Its use is already
governed by human rights -- the Human Rights Act and data protection
laws. I do of course however recognise the need to assess whether
a bespoke legislation work is needed and we will set out our plans on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this later in the year. Just on facial recognition, does
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just on facial recognition, does the Minister agree that my amendment 21 stops the police from accessing
21 stops the police from accessing everybody's driving licences just to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
everybody's driving licences just to use for complete surveillance. Which isn't what was intended in the bill. I'm grateful for my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful for my honourable friend raising that point because I probably won't have time to go into
the detail of that, but the amendment is not required because that's not the intention of what's in the Crime and Policing Bill will
in the Crime and Policing Bill will actually do. I'm very happy to speak to my honourable friend outside of the chamber about that. But just to
the chamber about that. But just to reassure her that's not the intention. Turning to the amendments
intention.
Turning to the amendments put forward on amendment 157, the Home Office regularly engages with frontline delivery partners and
practitioners to understand how the ASP powers are being used and their effectiveness at preventing and
tackling ASP. This is why the bill includes measures to strengthen the
existing powers available. New requirements in the bill for local agencies to provide information about ASD to the government will
further enhance our understanding of
how the ASD powers are used to
tackle antisocial behaviours.
Use injunctions are not novel, they already provided for under existing legislation in the form of the civil
injunction which is being split into three separate orders. The respect order, the youth injunction in the
housing injection. The use in housing injunctions remain elements of the existing simple injunctions
not covered under the new respect orders, namely for offenders under
18 and ASB. I also want to assure the House at any provisions to that
statutory guidance are extensively consulted on with relevant
stakeholders including frontline practitioners.
The liberal Democrat
spokesperson also spoke to an
amendment. This would apply the duty to report child sexual abuse to anyone volunteering or working in any capacity for religious belief or
faith groups. I know the honourable member has had an opportunity to discuss that amendment with the
Minister in recent days. Turning to the amendments tabled by my honourable friend member for North
West Cambridgeshire, I thought it was very helpful and useful to the
House to hear of his experience and knowledge about the particular issues around the Jehovah's Witness
groups and to bring that to life what this means when reports are
made.
Turning to amendment 10, the government does not consider would
be for ocean it to provide for a criminal sanction which may inadvertently create a chilling
effect on those who wish to volunteer with children or enter
certain professions. We are creating a specific effect -- offence of
deterring a person complying with the duty to report and anyone who seeks deliberately to prevent someone from fulfilling their
mandatory duty to report set -- child sexual abuse will be met with
the full force of the law.
I need to get to a few other amendments that
have been tabled. Amendment 11, assessing signs and indications of abuse can be complex and is
subjective, particularly for the large number of nonexperts. That
this duty could apply to, many of whom are engaging with children in infrequent or irregular settings. We
have chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to
believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative
definition for positions of trust. However, a person occupies a
position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offenses committed against a specific child.
Its value is a definition for a roof word of abuse is therefore limited. It has the potential to create
confusing duplication given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and
positions of trust. The list of activities and schedule seven have
been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust which
may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity and the government will keep this list under review and amended as
necessary.
My honourable friend for Bolton North East spoke to amendment
20, of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95 of the bill. And made a very passionate speech on
this issue and I know we discussed
this in recent days. On the issue of sentencing, it's already the case that the courts must consider the individual circumstances of each
case, including aggravating and mitigating factors and follow
relevant guidance. Where they have previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory
aggravating factor in sentencing.
I
have to say demountable friend at the amendment is holy inconsistent with a criminal offence of murder
that has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where
the encouragement or assistance
results in... The separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide
applies and manslaughter may also be charged as a direct link between the abuse and the suicide. The right honourable member spoke to amendment
161 which is to link clause 114.
Laws 114 will allow police to impose conditions on a protest if they have
a reasonable leaf -- believe it may deter individuals from accessing a place of worship, even if that
effect is not intended. This gives police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship
while respecting the right to peaceful protest. I want to refer to
the issues that were raised around spiking because a number of honourable and right honourable member spoke to this, including my
honourable friend for Hitchin, for
Darlington, the right honourable
Darlington, the right honourable
member for dumb -- dumb for sure.
And the honourable member for the Isle of Wight. Before say anything
else, I want to pay tribute to all of those who have been involved in campaigning on this issue for many years. The families and the campaign
groups. It is right that Richard Graham, a former member of this
Graham, a former member of this
House pioneered the need to get a specific spiking amendment brought forward. Going to the issue of
amendment 19, as discussed in committee, the offences drafted already captures a wide range of
criminal behaviours, including
spiking and non-spiking incidents, such as the victim being pepper sprayed.
The requirement for
specific intent to injure, agrees or annoy is long-standing and widely interpreted by the court --
aggrieved. If someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they
would likely have been found having
intended to annoy or aggrieved. I would say the broadness in the new offence and the increase in the maximum penalty compared to the
existing offence under section 24 of
the 1861 act is, in the view of the government, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to
intent risks over complicating the
law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions.
I also just
wanted to say to the honourable gentleman, because I know he spends
a lot of time looking at this. The spiking clause in the bill is modelled on the existing offence under the Offences against the
Person Act 1861, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004
case, and intention to loosen up the room, which the honourable gentleman referred to in the example he gave
today, that victim who was loosened
up, that was covered. I think it may be helpful to the honourable member to reflect on that.
We also
understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking when the defendant spiked the other person as a joke. We
therefore deem that the inclusion of
recklessness, as unnecessary to ensure that they were going to get the appropriate convictions we are
looking for with this new offence. I would say to the honourable gentleman we are very happy to continue to have conversations about
this to make sure we get the law absolutely right. There were many
other speeches today which I would like to comment on and I am very quickly running out of time.
Amendments four through seven by the honourable member and I did make
reference to those earlier on in my
comments. Also around amendment
eight. Turning to amendment to, I didn't fully understand why that was
brought forward by the honourable member, but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in
accordance with The Highway Code and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions. I would also likely -- just like to say in
conclusion that I hope and light to the response I've been able to make to a number of the amendments today, that those amendments will not be
moved and I beg to move the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the order of the House for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the order of the House for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the order of the House for the day, I must put the questions necessary to bring proceedings under consideration to conclusion. The
consideration to conclusion. The question is that new clause 52 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion, say, "Aye.". To the
that opinion, say, "Aye.". To the contrary, "No." The question is that
contrary, "No." The question is that clause 52 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say,
"Aye." To the contrary, "No." The
"Aye." To the contrary, "No." The
"Aye." To the contrary, "No." The We come to government new clauses 53-82 and the new schedules 1-3.
I
call the Minister to move 53-82 and
schedules 1-3 formally. The question
is that the new clauses 53-82 and schedules 1-3 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say,
"Aye." To the contrary, "No." The
"Aye." To the contrary, "No." The
I hundred and 74 has been I hundred and 74 has been selected
for separate decision. -- 174. The question is that amendment 174 be
made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the
16:03
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 18, amdt. 174
-
Copy Link
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment
The question is that amendment 174 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the
contrary, "No." The tellers for the ayes are Andrew Snowden and David
Simmonds. The tellers for the noes,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The ayes to the right 194, the
noes to the left 335.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 335. The ayes to the right 194, the noes to the left 335. The noes have
noes to the left 335. The noes have it. Unlock. Amendment 175 has been selected for a separate decision. I call the opposition spokesperson to
call the opposition spokesperson to move the amendment formally. The question is that amendment 175 be
question is that amendment 175 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the
16:17
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 30, amdt. 175
-
Copy Link
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that
opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The ayes to the right 184, the
noes to the left 336.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 336. The ayes were 184, the noes were
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes were 184, the noes were 336. The noes have it. Unlock. I
called the Minister to move amendments 24 to 66 formally. The
amendments 24 to 66 formally. The question is that governments amendment 24 through 66 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say,
many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The
ayes have it. I called the Minister to move motion to transfer
subsection for of clause 59. The question is that the government
motion to transfer subsection for a clause 59 be made.
As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the
that opinion, say, "Aye", of the
contrary, "No". The ayes have it. I called the Minister to move amendments 68 through 73 formally.
amendments 68 through 73 formally.
The question in -- is that government amendments 68 to 73 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the
contrary, "No". The ayes have it. Amendment 19 has been selected for a
separate decision. I called Joe Robertson to move the amendment
formally.
The question is that amendment 19 be made. As many as are
of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the
contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes, Andrew Snowden and David
16:43
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 115, amdt. 19
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The Order, order. The ayes Order, order. The ayes to Order, order. The ayes to the
328.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
328. The ayes to the right, 189. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right, 189. The noes to the left, 328. The North have it. I called the Minister to move amendments 74-86 formally. The
move amendments 74-86 formally. The question is that amendment 74 be
question is that amendment 74 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the
contrary, "No." The ayes have it.
The ayes have it. I hundred and 60 has been selected for special
decision. I called the spokesperson of the Liberal Democrats to move formally.
The question is that amendment 60 be made. As many as are
of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the contrary, "No." Division. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order
16:45
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 133, amdt. 160
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the contrary, "No." Tellers for the
ayes, Bobby Dean and Tom Morrison. The North, Gen Kitchen and Kate
The North, Gen Kitchen and Kate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The ayes to the right 89, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 428. The ayes were 89, the noes were
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes were 89, the noes were 428, The noes have it. Unlock. I
428, The noes have it. Unlock. I called the Minister to move
called the Minister to move amendments 87 through 101 and 134 through 156 formally. The question
through 156 formally. The question is that government amendments 87
is that government amendments 87 through 101 and 134 through 156 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the
contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
We now move on to the second part of
today's proceedings. On new clauses
and amendments related to abortion. Before I called to move new close one, I must inform the House that
knew clause 20, which will be debated as part of this group, will
fall if the House agrees to new close one. We will begin with new
close one with which it will be convenient to consider other new clauses and amendments as listed on
the selection paper for the second
part of day one.
I called Tanya to move new close one.
16:57
Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, I wish to speak and move new close one in my name. Nearly 5 years ago, having suffered
a rare complication in her abortion treatment, Nicola Packard laid down in shock having just delivered a
foetus at home. Later arriving at hospital bleeding and utterly
traumatised, she had no idea her ordeal was about to get profoundly worse. Her life torn apart.
Recovering from surgery, Nicola was taken from a hospital bed were uniformed police officers in a
police van had arrested for illegal
abortion offences.
In custody, the computer was seized and she was
denied by Alexis to vital anticlotting medication. What
followed was a 4 1/2 year pursuit by the police in the CPS which
completely overshadowed her 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 of this to ultimately be
cleared and found not guilty. Her 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 and
was 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. Her partner was never investigated by
police. Another woman, moments after
giving birth prematurely called an ambulance, 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 them. 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 she was pregnant at seven months. She had no symptoms. She was
told she was too late for an abortion, she has seen reports of
women investigated after miscarriages or stillbirths based on having previously been to an abortion clinic stop she spent the
rest of her pre- -- 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
delayed seeking medical help out of
Each one of these cases is a travesty, enabled by outdated
abortion law. Abortion is available
in England and Wales by the conditions set under the 1994 act but the law underpinning it dates
back to 1861, Offences against the Person Act, means it remains a
criminal offence outside those conditions, carrying a maximum life sentence. It was originally passed
by an all-male Parliament and this Victorian law is increasingly used
against vulnerable women and girls.
Since 2020, more than 100 women have been criminally investigated with
six facing court and one sent to prison. Women affected are often
acutely vulnerable, victims of
domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking, sexual exploitation.
Girls under 18 and women who have suffered a miscarriage, stillbirth, or have given birth prematurely also
face invasive and prolonged criminal investigations that cause long-term
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harm. Is there any other area of law
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is there any other area of law governing the taking of life where the guardrails of criminal law have
the guardrails of criminal law have been removed? Yet that is what is
been removed? Yet that is what is proposed to lay off when it comes to the voiceless child. No thought of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protection for them? I thank the honourable member for the intervention. He will now be
Abortion Act will not be amended. This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal
take women out of the criminal justice system because they are
justice system because they are vulnerable and need our help. I have said it before and will say it
again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice.
It is cruelty and it has got to end.
Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations and building on years
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of work by my honourable friend Tim Diana Johnson, -- dame Diana Johnson. I remained the honourable member
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I remained the honourable member she should not refer to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. -- remind. I apologise. My amendment will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise. My amendment will disavow criminal law relating to abortion from a woman acting in
abortion from a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. It is
relation to her own pregnancy. It is NC1, which does not change the rules
NC1, which does not change the rules of the Abortion Act. Abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors and women would still have to meet the grounds
would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the act.
Healthcare professionals, not at the moment but
professionals, not at the moment but I will litter, healthcare professionals acting outside the law
and abusive partners using violence are poison to end the pregnancy would still be criminalised as they
are now. There has been a cacophony of misinformation regarding clause 1 but let's be clear, if passes, it
will still be illegal for medical professionals to provide abortions
after 24 weeks but would no longer face prosecution. A high proportion
happens after 20 weeks and those needing care often face extreme
circumstances.
This includes abuse,
circumstances. This includes abuse,
Anomalies. No women wakes up at 24 weeks and decides to end her own pregnancy without medical support.
Some women in desperate circumstances make choices that many
of us would struggle to understand. The new clause 1 is about
recognising that these women need care and support and not
criminalisation. Members in this House will know that much of the work I do is driven by the plight of
highly vulnerable women and sex- based rates.
That is why I tabled
clause 1 to the bill. I have
profound concerns regarding NC 106, which would remove the ability of
women to have consultation over the phone or using electronic means and
would drive back progress made in 2022 and again require women to attend a face-to-face appointment
before accessing cure. Introduced in 2020, tell a medical abortion care
2020, tell a medical abortion care
was a revelation. -- telemedical. We let the world. Evidence gathered in
the UK help women in some of the most restrictive jurisdictions, including the US, to access abortion
remotely.
Here, the largest study on
abortion care in the world found that telemedicine is safe and accessible and reduces waiting time.
Many women now use this type of
care. With increases in demand since the pandemic, there is not the capacity in the NHS clinics to force these women to come into face-to-
face and that is why NC 106 we devastate abortion access in this
country, delaying or denying care for women with no clinical evidence
to support it. What concerns me most of all is the claim that making
abortion harder to access will help women in abusive relationships.
I
will quote the briefing from
violence against women and girls groups who contacted MPs before the
vote in 2022. They said, "The
argument that telemedicine adds to
coercion is from anti-abortion groups. It is about not addressing
coercion and abuse, forcing women to carry out unwanted pregnancy to term
does not solve domestic abuse." I
could not agree more. Colleagues will also be aware that another amendment has been tabled to the
amendment has been tabled to the
bill by the Member for Walthamstow.
They had a terrible experience today and were unable to walk into
Parliament because of the abuse they were having and the pictures that
were put and it was completely... It was unforgivable. I want to put up
the hand of friendship to say that we are not in this place to take that abuse. We share an interest in
removing women from criminal law
relating to abortion and NC 20 is much broader in relating to the
framework for broader abortion law.
I agree it needs wide reform but the
sector has underlined concerns with this and the ramifications it poses
for the abolition of abortion
clinics. The current settlement ensures abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women and
girls. Experts who function within it provide over 250,000 abortions every year and I think the sector
should be listened to. More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed but the rate that is
through a future bill that might be
right space for that is through a
future bill.
We have to work together to secure the changes needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope the on ability will not mind if I refer to her as an
mind if I refer to her as an honourable friend. She is making a clear point and has pointed to a lot
clear point and has pointed to a lot of confusion and misrepresentation about what the clause is trying to
achieve and she shared some heartrending examples. She just said
heartrending examples. She just said what I think the whole House will agree with that is that in recent years, we have seen the legislative
years, we have seen the legislative approach to abortion effectively as ornaments on the legislative Christmas tree, tacked on in an ad
Christmas tree, tacked on in an ad hoc way.
I think that she is right. This is a serious issue and I say
This is a serious issue and I say this as the father to three daughters. It's a serious issue that requires serious consideration with the bill committee and evidence from
all sides. Notwithstanding the law
and that she is heartfelt in her sincerity, I believe it would be better to do with these complex issues in a freestanding bill rather
than by amendment to a crime and policing Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention and I heard him
his intervention and I heard him
his intervention and I heard him intervene earlier and the fact is that the new clause, the amendment,
that the new clause, the amendment, it takes women out of the criminal justice system and that is what has got to happen and that is what has
got to change now. There is no way these women should be facing what they are facing. Whether we agree on
they are facing.
Whether we agree on this issue are not, I understand
this issue are not, I understand that is why I have not supported the new clause 20. It is because there
is a debate needed about this issue. All this clause looks to do is take out women under the criminal justice
out women under the criminal justice system and give them the support and help that they need and take them
out now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable lady and I have been friends all year and we had pain last time to chat about these
pain last time to chat about these things and we both acknowledged each
other's point of view. I would cast
your mind back, if you do not mind, to the medicine and it is said that is intended to protect vulnerable
is intended to protect vulnerable women but the risks the other we are
women but the risks the other we are surely greater.
Women can be coerced into abortions against their will with an abuser in the background or
with an abuser in the background or the pills could fall into the wrong hands, as we know. As the honourable lady except that with all the
lady except that with all the protections she is putting forward to safeguard women, that one thing
to safeguard women, that one thing that doesn't seem to be part of the process is the baby and that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concerns me greatly. The honourable member, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable member, the recognition that across the House,
recognition that across the House, our voices may differ in opinions but we have respect for each other. I don't see this as a case of
I don't see this as a case of , the Abortion Act, and moving any issue relating to that because this
issue relating to that because this is the Crime and Policing Bill and make sure that those vulnerable women in those situations have the right to support and that is the whole purpose of this.
It is not
whole purpose of this. It is not about discussing the issues that he
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would like to discuss now. I absolutely recognise that she
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I absolutely recognise that she comes from the right place in this. She describes this as a very narrow
thing but in actual fact she's asking us not just to make sure that
those women, and the agri-reform is needed and she has raised some powerful points but not specifically
powerful points but not specifically
those cases but in every case ever,
there can never be a case is prosecuted and that is a leap to take and the issue remains something
against the law and, whatever the circumstances, it must be
prosecuted.
That is why I cannot support it despite recognising that
she is right that reform is needed. Can she say anything to explain why there must never be any prosecution
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ever? I thank my honourable friend for his intervention because the truth
his intervention because the truth is we have to flip this around.
is we have to flip this around. There is no women that is deterred or anybody that is deterred... This
or anybody that is deterred... This is not a deterrent. The criminal law
is not a deterrent. The criminal law does not work as a deterrent. These women are desperate and need help. They may be coerced or in a
They may be coerced or in a situation where it could be a stillbirth, it could be.
That is not
stillbirth, it could be. That is not going to help the woman at any
**** Possible New Speaker ****
point. I agree with her that these women
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I agree with her that these women
need help. I can't imagine a more lonely and difficult experience than being a woman who has an abortion under the circumstances she has outlined and that is the problem
with the amendment. Would it not make abortion more dangerous and lonely by decriminalising the woman
but not those who may be there to give support at that time? I cannot
think of a time when someone may be more in need of support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not know of anyone who has had an abortion at any stage to sing it lately. Any abortion at any stage
it lately. Any abortion at any stage of your pregnancy is a life changing
of your pregnancy is a life changing
That's why I don't take this lightly. That's why whether to enter
lightly. That's why whether to enter more out of term, that experience of childless -- child loss, whether it is planned or not, stays with a
is planned or not, stays with a woman for the rest of her life.
I
woman for the rest of her life. I don't take this easily, standing up here, having the abuse that we have had outside of this chamber. This is
had outside of this chamber. This is a serious issue and these are women that need the help. They need the
that need the help. They need the help, they need it now. We cannot continue the way we continue. This
very simple amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will take the
women out of this situation and that is what I seek to achieve will stop
--.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If a woman goes all the way through to the full-term and then decides it's an inconvenience, do you still think she should be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
covered by this legal protection? I would like to know if the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to know if the honourable member actually knows any woman that would put themselves in
that situation if there wasn't coercion or control of some kind.
coercion or control of some kind. Because I have been told. Obviously a lot of research, a lot of conversations have been going on for
conversations have been going on for years on this issue. And I understand that people have used across the South. Indeed, I was
across the South. Indeed, I was brought up a Catholic.
My issues are
brought up a Catholic. My issues are that that woman, if she did take...
And what I've been told, then how would she go about it? If it wasn't
taking abortion pills, she would
have a baby. It is not about 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. I need to make progress. In
the meantime, doctors, midwives, abortion providers and parliamentarians have tried 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. NSC one is the only amendment that would detect women currently at risk of
prosecution and protect abortion
services. That is why I have the backing of every abortion provider and every organisation that represent abortion providers in
England and Wales. The Royal College of obstetricians and gynaecologists,
midwives, general practitioners, psychiatrists and nurses also endorse it. Numerous violence
against women and girls groups,
including the Center for women's justice and many others are also
behind new close one.
The public overwhelmingly support this change as well. I implore colleagues not to
lose sight of the moral imperative here. Namely vulnerable women being
dragged from hospital bed to a police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is
urgent. We know 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 lifetime
generation, 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. I implore colleagues who want to protect women and girls and abortion services to vote for new clause 1.
Let's ensure that not a single
desperate woman ever again is subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments
in their lives. There must be no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
more Laura's and no more Nicholas. -- Nicola Packers. Removing women from the criminal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Removing women from the criminal law related to abortion. The question is that new clause 1 The question is that new clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that new clause 1B read a second time. Dr Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Johnson. I rise in support of new clause 106, but first if I may speak deeply
106, but first if I may speak deeply about new clause 1 which we've been discussing so far. Essentially the honourable member talked about some
honourable member talked about some pretty harrowing cases, but one of the things she didn't talk about was
the things she didn't talk about was how the First Lady was utterly traumatised having had the abortion at home, which she received a
at home, which she received a telemedicine.
One of the things my new clause seeks to do is to make women safer by insuring those women
women safer by insuring those women are seen and given the opportunity for proper medical consultation before they get to the stage where
17:21
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
they are given inappropriate medication because of a
medication because of a misunderstanding. And they end up in a traumatised situation clearing a
a traumatised situation clearing a relatively mature foetus unexpectedly at home. The honourable lady did not say whether she
believes babies should be terminated right up to term during her speech,
right up to term during her speech, but I want to put on record that I do not. I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician and I've cared for
paediatrician and I've cared for impersonally held babies in my hand from 21 weeks and six days gestation
right through to term.
I'm very aware that babies from 36 weeks
aware that babies from 36 weeks upward have a 98% chance of survival. While I am supportive of a woman's right to choose an early
pregnancy, I am not supportive of similar rights for healthy babies
right the way up to term. Until the pandemic, women had to attend abortion clinics where they would
see a professional and that they would talk through their desire for
an abortion. They would be checked
for how far pregnant they were and it's well known, and the honourable lady raised cases of women who
believe they were so far pregnant and turned out to be much further pregnant.
One of the key reasons for this is women often bleed in early
pregnancy and because of that they may believe those bleeding episodes
represent a period. This is important in relation to the context of accessing an abortion because
abortions are only allowed home by telemedicine up to 10 weeks and the
reason for that is not to be difficult or word or make it more difficult for women to access abortions. It's a safety issue because we know the complications
are greater later in pregnancy.
What is essentially happening in the early stages is it's causing the
baby or the foetus to be born. If you do that to a baby much later in
pregnancy would cause it to be born and has a chance of survival which can lead to a traumatic experience
for the mother is at the much larger foetus than expected and lead to bleeding and in one case I'm aware
of has led to the death of a mother. While she was given pills for home taking when she was much more
pregnant than she was expected to be.
I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the honourable member giving way. If this is about safety, then we have to think about
safety, then we have to think about the safety of the baby as well. In my constituency, a baby had a live
my constituency, a baby had a live birth at 30 weeks gestation.
birth at 30 weeks gestation. Tragically, the baby went on to live for just four days, struggled over that time and then died. Must we not
that time and then died.
Must we not consider the baby's safety as much
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as the woman's safety? I think we need to consider both.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we need to consider both. I remember there was a case of a lady Carla Foster in June 23 and
from my reading of it she admitted lying in her gestation and said she was further back in pregnancy, seven
was further back in pregnancy, seven weeks, when she was much further. It turned out to be around 33 weeks. Her little girl that she called
Willie was born -- Lily. She describes in the papers I read about
it being traumatised will stop that could have been prevented if that
lady had been to a proper clinic in seen health professional because a health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven
weeks pregnant and that taking abortion pills intended for early
pregnancy was not a suitable medical intervention, not a safe medical intervention for her to have.
If one
is doing a later termination of pregnancy, what happens then is the baby has an injection of potassium chloride to kill the baby. And then
the baby is born in the usual way.
But deceased. That's why one of the reasons it's important we know what the gestation is because the
termination that is offered under the law is done by a different route in order to make sure it's done safely. We no later in pregnancy
termination happens, the more medical complications the woman is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at risk of. I will give way. It's an expert and well-informed speech and I will be supporting her amendment today. On the point about
amendment today. On the point about the risks involved with abortion to birth, does she share my concern,
what does she think about jurisdictions where this has been decriminalised such as New Zealand or the state of Victoria in
or the state of Victoria in Australia where they have seen a significant increase in failed
significant increase in failed late-term abortions where a baby has been born and there has been a lot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of physical harm and risk as a result. Every jurisdiction has a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but I do think
and I respect that, but I do think it's a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have occurred in a way that has not been
occurred in a way that has not been supported by medical care and of the law and women and infants have suffered harm. Significant harm as a
result. I wanted to raise the case because some people say this is about protecting vulnerable women.
But this was a case for prosecuting in December 24 where a man who did
not want his partner to be pregnant and when she did want to be pregnant
decided to take matters into his own home -- hands. What he did was cut a woman who was not pregnant to get
the pills for him. He then put them in some drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage in
her. He has rightly been put in jail for that will stop but it does
demonstrate that we can see that there are men out there who will obtain these tablets with the help
of a woman.
That could not happen if women had to have an in person
appointment. It couldn't happen because the woman arriving at the
clinic to get the abortion pills on a man's behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant and would not be
able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women,
women who are wrong about their gestation and mistaken because they think they have had a bleed or
whatever, to make sure they have a termination safely using the right mechanism.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am delighted to say I will be supporting her amendment too. There's been a lot of talk in this
There's been a lot of talk in this place in recent weeks. About
place in recent weeks. About coercion. The kind she describes as a reality. It is all fine and well
to have a fence of five middle-class view of the world. As I said in respect to a different Bill, there
respect to a different Bill, there are many wicked people doing many wicked things.
The kind of coercion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
she describes is the reality. I thank him for his intervention and I do agree with him. I will come
and I do agree with him. I will come to coercion a little later on. I wanted to go back to new close one
wanted to go back to new close one which he criminalises -- he criminalises the woman in respect of
criminalises the woman in respect of her own pregnancy. It seems to me
what many wish to do is decriminalised abortion up until term.
That's a legitimate position
**** Possible New Speaker ****
some people take. I will give way. Thank you for taking my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for taking my intervention. I really would urge
some rethinking of what you are saying, what the honourable lady is saying, because there is nothing in
saying, because there is nothing in the amendment that says abortion up to term. There is no change to the
to term. There is no change to the abortion law, absolutely no change
abortion law, absolutely no change and we are not saying in order to determine. I think it is externally harmful to say that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harmful to say that. I thank her for her intervention.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank her for her intervention. I think it does not change... It
I think it does not change... It allows abortion... Abortion is currently legal to procure her own
abortion between 24 and term in the event the baby is healthy. Otherwise
she has to go and have it done by doctors and hospital. Under the
rules the honourable lady has proposed, what we will have is a situation where a woman is able to legally have an abortion up until
term if she wants to do so.
At any
gestation. If people want to argue
that, that's a completely legitimate argument, it's not what I support and agree with, but it's a
legitimate one people can make. But if that's her convictions they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should make it. Criminal law does not work as a deterrent, why does late-term
abortions increase in Victoria, New Zealand after decriminalisation if
Zealand after decriminalisation if we look at New Zealand in 2020, there was a 43% increase in late-
term abortions between 20 weeks gestation of birth in the same year compared with 2019. So this
demonstrates that criminal law does act as a deterrent and when it is removed you see the increase and we need to learn from these different
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need to learn from these different jurisdictions in this regard. The honourable lady is right to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable lady is right to say we have seen an increase in
events of people taking abortion pills late because previously it was very difficult if not impossible to obtain and it was not possible to
obtain and it was not possible to obtain through the NHS clinics. Now it is because people can go on to
telemedicine and ask for pills and say they are seven weeks pregnant will stop wasting examples where they have done so and much more
further on in pregnancy and obtain the medicine and made themselves
I wanted to look at the issue of
coercion.
When a doctor sees a patient, the patient tells them things and they take them at face value, everything they say. Now when
a lady goes on to a telemedicine to have an abortion, it is not possible
for the doctor or the clinician to know if somebody else is in the room with that patient. It's not possible
for them to know if somebody is that the other side of the camera,
forcing them to say what they've been asked to say. It is not possible for the doctor to know if
the individual lady is pregnant or not.
It's not possible for that Doctor or clinician to know if that
person that's asking for medicine is going to be the person who takes those medicines or not. That is
those medicines or not. That is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unsafe. It's very unsafe. I take a point, although the same
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I take a point, although the same applies when facing a doctor, I can get some abortion pills and give them to someone else after my
appointment but as it stands, I represent a semirural constituency with a lack of bus routes and medical facilities. I understand her
medical facilities. I understand her concerns about coercion but there will be lots of women who are victims of domestic violence and coercion in my constituency him this will make it significant harder to
will make it significant harder to access medicine and disproportionately, the point was made about poor people will often
struggle as a result.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
struggle as a result. She is of course correct that if a woman came and got the tablets at
a woman came and got the tablets at the clinic, she could give them to some deals, but in order to get them in the first place, she would need to be pregnant. She would need to be
to be pregnant. She would need to be 10 weeks pregnant, and would perhaps be some questions asked when this medications appeared not to have worked about whether medicines had
gone.
So I think there is an inherent safety feature therefore
stop the honourable Eddie brings in issues of bus routes and suchlike and of course that's important but the question is should we improve
the bus routes or should we make this medical service less safe?
Because most clinical services are accessed by individuals attending hospitals or clinics. And in some
respects this is no different because it's important proper medical checks are done. I'm not trying to limit people's access to
what is clinically legally available.
I'm trying to make sure people are safe when they do so.
Thinking about women who have been trafficked, women who are being forced into sex work, we talked
yesterday in the House about women, young girls who had been groomed and raped. In these grooming gang
raped. In these grooming gang
scandals. We put it past those evil nasty men to have got drugs and given them to these young girls to
hide the evidence of their crimes? I would not put it past them.
What about those who want to observe
their daughter being pregnant? What about those who think the baby being carried by their partner is of the wrong gender because they would like
a boy? And they are having a girl. What about those who are trying to
cover up sexual abuse of particular teenagers and young girls by hiding the evidence of their crimes and causing termination? What if they
don't want the baby? Stewart was caught and prosecuted and is rightly
in jail, but how many others have done it and not got caught? We
simply never know.
No one knows who is actually taking these
medications, whereas if we have a proper clinic, people will be able
to check the gestation, be able to see more effectively if a woman is
being coerced, the abortion as medically safe as possible as it's able to be. So my amendment isn't
pro-life, isn't pro-choice. It
**** Possible New Speaker ****
simply pro safety. I think we all agree that there
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we all agree that there is a concern about vulnerable people
17:34
Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
is a concern about vulnerable people and abortion law in this country. We disagree about how to address those concerns. I rise to proposed new
clause 20 as a way to address those
concerns and to recognise that this issue about abortion access is increasingly under attack, not just
here in our shores but around the
world. And if we think that the reason why we face these challenges are that we have these outdated laws
in this country, then why would we retain them in any shape or form, rather than learning from what is
best practice around the world for all of our constituents? Then be put on record the start then that I take
very seriously all the concerns that are raised across the benches about
abortion.
I recognise this is a
complex issue. I hear very strongly the stories about the investigations and prosecutions and want to see
change, but I also recognise the change doesn't come without
consequences. New clause 20 therefore is about what many of us
who have worked on what is good abortion law is based on. It is
based on what frankly the sector itself used to say mattered, which was that abortion law in England and
Wales should recognise developments in modern abortion law in Northern Ireland, delivering on the promise
that we made in this place in 2019 that abortion was a human right,
that safe care was a human right for women and that we should see a progression of minimum human rights
standards on abortion, including the committee for the elimination of violence against proposals.
I want
to start with how it does that. Because I want to be very clear that
only new clause 20 is decriminalisation. Decriminalisation as defined by Marie Stokes means removing abortion from the criminal law so it's no longer governed by
both hope and the infant life preservation act because that protects both clinicians and those
that are at threat of criminal prosecution but decriminalisation doesn't impact the regulations
unsafe medical use, medical conduct, or indeed the distribution of
medicines, nobody stop those who
seek to use abortion as a means of abuse or coercion.
So first of all,
what new clause 20 does in decriminalising and removing these laws to cause these problems as it
keeps the 67 act not as a list of reasons for why you were exempted from prosecution but as a guide to
how abortion should be provided. I think many of us in this House
recognise the shock of our constituents that abortion is illegal in theory in this country and that those guidelines in the 67
act a settled will this place is the kind of proposals we want to put
forward.
It requires the secretary of state resolving regulated
challenges only to comply with sections 85 and 86. These are about minimum standards of care, not
maximum, and only if the Secretary of State believes there appears to
be an incongruence that needs to be addressed. I would happily give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Two things she said already. She talked about the significance of the
talked about the significance of the 67 act. When Lord steel, in the 67 act he said it was not his aim to leave wide-open abortion on request.
leave wide-open abortion on request. And yet it is a human right that
And yet it is a human right that people should have the right to an abortion. So how does she reconcile her advocacy of what she described
her advocacy of what she described as the settled will of the 67 act, i.e.
Not having abortion on request with the right to have it on
request?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
request? I hope the member opposite has read the human rights requirements because they are actually about the treatment and dignity of the woman in question and the safety of the
in question and the safety of the service that is provided. I do not believe that Lord steel but want to
see women put at risk, indeed I think that's why he fought for that original legislation. These are human rights treaties that we have
supported in this place for other
reasons.
What this amendment does, as it did in Northern Ireland was to use as a guide, a template, test if you will as to whether or not the
safety and well-being of women is at the heart of what many of us believe
is a healthcare rather than criminal matter. It also sets out some additional tests in terms of how we interpret those human rights
provisions because it also brings in the international car international
cultural rights to constitute the right of women to sexual and
reproductive health, and gender equality because fundamentally what those human rights are are about equal treatment of each other's
bodies.
At the moment, the lack of a human right creates an inequality
for women in my constituency and tears that women in Northern Ireland do not face and how we shape
services around their well-being. It is an established principle. We understand some have argued that we
should not do this through amendments to legislation. The reality is that this issue has
always been a non-governmental one.
Protect the fact that there are
people who disagree with the right to abortion in everything a party and also people who do support the right to abortion in every single party, but consequently that means
that amendments and proposals and reform of abortion will always come either from our backbenchers or indeed the customer has won the golden buzzer of a Private Member's
Bill.
Which happens very rarely. But the good news is that we also know from Northern Ireland those who have called for consultation, this is exactly what we got by voting for
abortion to be a human right in Northern Ireland. We got consultation, so if you are
concerned about this amendment and I with the lack of consultation, then
to voting committee were triggering a consultation into how to apply that human rights test to abortion
provision in England and Wales. To test whether our services meet the same objectives we set for women in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Northern Ireland. There is a difference of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is a difference of principle on the question of the human rights because there were two
human rights because there were two lives involved in these decisions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And that's the fundamental problem. And I respect his belief in that. I will always defend his right, but
I will always defend his right, but I tell him this, I tell him this, that the human right of the women in
terms of carrying a baby is intricately related to the viability of the baby to survive, so if we
of the baby to survive, so if we don't look after women, if we don't protect the well-being of women, there will be no babies either.
And
there will be no babies either. And what this does is to say does it matter to us that we treat women equally across our country and the
equally across our country and the regulation of this healthcare procedure? It also practically means
there is somebody to champion those regulations. In Northern Ireland, the human rights has taken the government to court where access has
been denied. She has established buffer zones, safe access to abortion clinics as a human right
and indeed now she is looking at telemedicine as a human right, and
how to provide it in a safe way for women.
I will bomb a time and then I
want to make some progress.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In referring to Northern Ireland, of course it was courteous of the honourable members interventions back in 2019 that we had voiced it
back in 2019 that we had voiced it upon Northern Ireland, the most extreme abortion law anywhere in the
extreme abortion law anywhere in the United Kingdom. Abortion laws that
totally disregard the rights of the unborn, that treat them as a commodity to be disposed of at will
commodity to be disposed of at will and whim, and in consequence we've seen a huge unregulated increase in
seen a huge unregulated increase in the destruction of human life through the destruction of the unborn in Northern Ireland.
Eidetic
unborn in Northern Ireland. Eidetic that's an example anyone should want to follow in any part of this United
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Kingdom. I respect the honourable gentleman does not agree with
gentleman does not agree with abortion, but whatever say to him as I said throughout my life in campaigning on this, stopping access
to abortion doesn't stop abortion. It stops safe abortion. And what
we're talking about is how to provide abortion safely. It would disagree with abortion. I will say I
Ireland have done so safely, which means that their lives are protected. And surely if someone is pro-life, they are pro- woman's life
as well.
Now new clause 20 is about the fundamental question because of
her people also suggest... I would take him one more time, but I'm sorry I can't because I will tell
him afterwards why I can't but a promise it's not out of a lack of respect for his permission. Some were saying that Northern Ireland is
different. But I want to know why we both think that women in Northern
Ireland are different to women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? The point here is not
that we are seeking to remove our existing regulations but hold them to the same test.
And for the Secretary of State to simply ask
that question whether they are in place. And I would say those who celebrated and continue to promote bringing abortions Northern Ireland didn't just celebrate the provision
of a service, they celebrated the liberation of women from this
inequality that we now risk picture waiting our own constituents. I'm sorry you can't take any interventions. New clause 20 is primarily about the principle of
whether you think abortion is a human right and how we apply the principle to our laws here.
It's
also about the threat to access that is very present and very real in our
communities. Members will have seen outside the modern anti-abortion movement that we now have in the UK complete with the scaremongering emails that members will have
received. Of course they are reacting more strongly than ever to
the idea of women having human right protected in law because their opposition isn't about children. If
so they wouldn't be shouting at mine when they see them in the street.
It's about controlling women.
Not openly advocate to end abortion access but they make such lyric
claims as the idea that would be abortion and birth. This let me put this one to bed. Because new clause 20 retains the 1967 framework, it
retains not just the time limit and frankly it is crucially different to
new clause 1 because it retains all of the provisions in the 67 act to
of the provisions in the 67 act to
We should protect the time limit, we should protect the medics involved,
because the person who gets the fatal feet of abnormality dose
notice diagnosis.
If we target
medics, as could happen in this country, those people who are asked to carry a baby to term that they
know will die will not get our protection. Yes, we must stop the investigations and prosecutions but we must also protect the person in
the heartbreaking moment of being told that a baby they really want
told that a baby they really want
will not live. That is what keeping 67 act does. I cannot take interventions because of time. Those
that worry that new clause 20 removes outdated laws should look at
the prosecutions that have taken place under existing laws.
Let's deal with the claims being put about, it would mean no crime will
continue to exist. That is why they
called, in 2015, when they hailed
offence of coercion which would remain and explicitly covers forcing
someone to have an abortion, including giving the same penalty as section 59 OPA. Those who claim
coercion would be illegal under new clause 20, have either not paid
attention or the calls to ensure that more healthcare providers are
aware of the 2015 law.
Those who claim the loss of the concealment of
the body law in section 60 would facilitate life abortions should
look at the existing laws of GBH which are used in such cases. Because of the difficulty of proving
section 60 and the requirements.
And, as somebody who gave birth to a baby at 37 weeks, I want to be clear
why time limits matter. Not just the application of substance misuse
laws. Let us be clear, weekly criminal offences to cover the cases
put out.
But we are talking about removing laws who have criminal
people who had stillbirths. People who need compassion, to differentiate between an outdated
law and the malicious attempt in the
substance misuse act. Also, in
retaining a 67, we retain the good faith principle to all parties in an
abortion and that will deal with the trip of sex selection, which nobody can prove has happened, but is contained in the good faith
arrangements. Even so, I returned to Northern Ireland, it was the absence of regulation that made the difference, it was Parliament voting
to make abortion a human right and the government working with us to make it happen.
Voting for new clause 20 would kickstart the
process, we know that government lawyers do not like to deal with change, who does? But that is the
proper and appropriate way and the
only way in our Parliament to be able to do it. Those who recognise that reproductive rights and the foundation of social justice know
foundation of social justice know
that now is the time to act. If we are not free to control what happens to our bodies, we cannot be free in the rest of our lives and those
playing politics with abortion play politics with equality accordingly.
We should not tolerate the
interference of the vice president. Only new clause 20 would give the human rights footing. We would not
ask a woman to carry to term a baby that would die at birth but there
are people in this place who call abortion was ludicrous and advocate for a reduction in the time limit,
putting a woman's Health Secretary
come that would not happen under a human rights frame. There is At least right now. With less than half
of all young men in this country believing abortion should be legal, those who feel content that abortion
is a second matter and cannot be weaponised need to listen to the
drumbeat banging loudly.
Until we face a choice today, we know that
these laws are outdated but do we retain them or remove them and get ahead of what is to come? I urge
colleagues to listen to our American counterparts who regret not having
acted under Biden and Obama to protect abortion access and now find themselves with medics being prosecuted and dragged across
straight lines... State lines. Do we
learn from our Parliament has acted before? Members know that a new
clause 1 is past, new clause 20 cannot pass.
Members will not have the right to say whether they
believe it is a fundamental human
right. I will support new clause 1 today but it is with hesitation and that is not because I dismiss those
proposing it, I hope we can agree, there are genuine reasons for disagreement, it is because new clause 20 rings in a lock on
ministerial powers and restricts
what ministers not Parliament can do in a delegated legislative committee. It is surprising to me
how few people have had the
experience of sitting in a committee and seeing a committee stacked with MPs from the government making
changes to law but in 15 years that has happened to me a number of times.
We have seen it on a tuition
fee and welfare cuts and the EU retained law act. Only new clause 20
would stop ministers using those powers to overturn abortion rights,
they would only use the powers to
bring in human rights compliance regulations. Conversely, if new clause 1 is past, there are no
constraints, it does not require regulation, but it will facilitate it. As the Hansard Society point
lead, and it is sometimes seek powers to take actions they would
feel appropriate.
It leaves
ministers with huge powers. New clause 1 rings abortion within the province of that the decision and
gives the enabling powers to a Secretary of. As long as they would
not reverse the diss application. The computer target medics, family
around somebody. Therefore, I ask the Minister to set out commitment that if it is past, there will be no
further regulation and no
application, either to make new clause 1 workable or clarify the impact of persecution. If a Minister
cannot do this, she is proving this
power will exist.
By contrast, new clause 20 would restrict that, it would give power back to this place,
we can demand each of us acting on
the behalf of our constituents. I will close with this, from lies does
not reduce abortion, it just makes it harder to do it safely.
Criminalisation will remain if new
clause 1 is past. If we want de- communisation, the sector has advocated for, it is only through
new clause 20. I hope colleagues have heard this debate and will not
let the matters rest.
Regret has no place in politics, no place in politics I came in to represent.
With those who seek to attack women in this way, I pledge to continue
fighting for their rights. I asked colleagues to consider the case for
doing it in this way. I ask people who care to think about this moment
and whether we will have this moment ever again where the Parliament can act in such a positive way. We can
get one thing over the line, why don't we get the thing that could make the biggest difference over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
line? I will impose an immediate four
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will impose an immediate four minute time limit. Members will see there are a lot of colleagues trying to get in. Rebecca Smith.
to get in. Rebecca Smith.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I rise to speak to new clause 106 against new clause 1 and new clause 20. I'm grateful to place
new clause 20. I'm grateful to place on record my concerns about this attempt to alter our nations
17:55
Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
attempt to alter our nations abortion Lords. In doing so, we risk creating a series of unintended consequences which could endanger
women. We need more time. Today's debate is not pro-choice versus pro-life debate, we have the most inclusive laws in Europe, medical
abortion available up to 24 weeks,
double the European average, and we have the option for full-term abortion on medical grounds. Today's debate is about ensuring that
legislation, as significant as this,
introducing a wholesale change, is not rushed through without the
chance for scrutiny and 90 minutes of Backbench debate does not cut it.
We should treat women treating an
abortion with compassion and dignity
and as a counsellor, I chaired the commission on violence against women and girls, it is my guiding
principle in politics and it is with these women in mind I make this speech. Over 1,000 professionals
have shared, in an open letter, if offences that make it illegal for a
woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would become possible up
to birth for any reason including abortions for sex selective purposes as women could mistakenly, knowingly
or under coercion mislead abortion
providers about the gestation or age.
If either of these amendments
were to become law, it would lead to serious risks to women's health because of the dangers involved in self-administered late abortions. Aside from the increased numbers of
viable babies life being ended beyond the 24 week limit, there
would be a significant increase in such complications if amendments
were to pass as they would remove any legal deterrent against women
administering their own abortions. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but,
for these reasons, we believe it remains important.
Many supporters
claim the 24 week limit would not
change, but this is misleading, any time limit is meaningless if abortions are legalised all the way up until birth for any reason
without a legal deterrent. Once de- communisation takes place, it is my concern that further steps will be
taken to expand time limits and any campaigners who have been mentioned this afternoon are on record for
saying as much, it is important we are realistic about this as well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are not here to amend, this is not a Backbench debate, we are here
not a Backbench debate, we are here to lay an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. I hope she stands corrected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
corrected. It is not a case of being corrected, it is a case of significant concerns that I have
significant concerns that I have that, should this clause be passed, this is the next step. I think we
this is the next step. I think we might have to disagree on that. Public opinion and professional
Public opinion and professional advice is clear, only one% of the public support introducing abortion up to birth, 70% of women would like
up to birth, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in the time limit
from 24 weeks, down to 20 weeks or less, still well above many European
neighbours.
An 89% of the population oppose sex selective abortions. I
will make progress. Those championing NFC one claimed the amendment is needed. However, it is
important to highlight that prosecutions under sections 58 and 59 of the offence against the Person
act most always relate -- relate to
males. You also stop the opportunity to prosecute abusive or coercive
males, to be prosecuted for aiding abortion, and these to have been a
case to answer in the first place. Instead I stand here to suggest a
better route forward, new clause 106, tabled by my honourable friend.
She is excellently rehearsed the
argument for why that should be the case but I want to add, FOI requests revealed one in 17 women who took
pills by post required hospital
treatment. Further investigation found the number of callouts to ambulance services relating to
abortion increased in London and the
south-west from 33 in 2019, up to 74
in 2020, 124% increase. This correlates with the removal of the
need for a doctor's appointment. At home abortions were made permanent by just 27 votes, due in 2025 polling centres two thirds of women
support, I call on people to support amendment 106.
amendment 106.
I rise in support of my
18:00
Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
honourable friend's amendment which would remove women from the Cronulla law on abortion. -- Criminal law on
law on abortion. -- Criminal law on abortion. This is an issue that has
abortion. This is an issue that has long been close to my heart. Until recently, violent men ending their partner's pregnancies made up the
partner's pregnancies made up the bulk of persecution is under this
bulk of persecution is under this 1861 law. Recently, we have seen a rise in women being targeted, many
rise in women being targeted, many erroneously, this is not in order that exists in Northern Ireland,
that exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even in the most
New Zealand or even in the most anti-abortion states of America.
But it is a law that is increasingly
it is a law that is increasingly I want to take some time to speak
about some of these women. I want to talk about Becker, which is not her
real name. Her mum and dad were horrified about what happened, and they want us to hear the injustice
that this causes command think of
Becker when we cast our votes later.
Becker was 19 years old when she gave birth to her baby in hospital.
She had access to abortion care through a licensed clinic, thinking she was in the first 10 weeks of
pregnancy. She suffered a very rare combination where her pregnancy was later than she and her doctors expected. Her parents reported she gained no weight, had to have regular periods and have been
working night shifts for the NHS
only hours before. When she gave birth, her baby was small and premature. She says the first
premature. She says the first
hospital was amazing, providing support for her, her partner and her baby.
The second however, made the decision against professional guidance and against rules on patient confidentiality to report
her and her partner to the police on suspicion of attempted abortion. And
so one month after her child was born, Becker returned home to
register the birth and the police swooped. Both she and her partner were arrested. Her from her parents
House, him from the baby's cot side. They were held in police cells and interviewed under caution without
understanding what was happening or why. When they were bailed, social services visited the House and told
them they were not allowed to care for their baby.
Without supervision. Becker could not breastfeed or hold
her baby and tell her parents were
improved as supervisors. During that visit, the social worker made a difficult situation even worse,
telling family baby was deaf and blind as a result of the alleged abortion attempt. The baby wasn't.
This casual cruelty by a social worker caused immense distress.
Fortunately, now Becker, her partner and baby are doing well, social services agreed they are good parents and are no longer monitoring
them. I imagine many members across
the chamber today had never thought this kind of cruelty existed under abortion law in this country.
Any
that I had never considered it. The truth is the current legal framework harms women and girls when they are
at their most desperate. And the only people who can stop it is here in Parliament today. Whilst changing
the law now can't erase what
happened to Beck and her family, it can stop it happening to anyone else if we vote through and see one
today. Urge honourable members to keep women like Becker in the forefront of their minds when it comes to voting on and see one
later.
Think of Becker, and vote for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and see one. Mike concerns about these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mike concerns about these amendments were such that I and others commissioned the leading king council to draft a legal opinion regarding their offence. Informing
regarding their offence. Informing members of their conclusions first I begin with new clause 1. KC confirms
18:03
Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
begin with new clause 1. KC confirms other new clause one in practice, " It would no longer be illegal for a
woman to carry out her own abortion at home for any reason, at any gestation up to birth." I know the honourable member acknowledges
inherent explanatory statement to
new clause 1 that amendment applies at any gestation. That's up to full term. So let's be clear what this
means. Under new clause 1, women would be able to perform their own abortions for example with abortion pills that can now be obtained
without any in-person gestation age check up to birth with no legal
deterrent.
I give way very briefly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Due to medical advancements we can save the life of a foetus at 21 weeks. Yet we can legally terminate
weeks. Yet we can legally terminate a foetus at 24 weeks. I shall be voting against all the amendments relating to decriminalisation of abortion and in fact with the right
abortion and in fact with the right honourable gentleman not agree with me that we should actually be
me that we should actually be reducing the window in which you can have an abortion so that the law reflects the realities of modern
medicine?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
medicine? Let me move to new clause 20 and I moving with very narrow legal points because it might be of interest to the House for top KC
interest to the House for top KC include similarly the new. And you would render the 24 week time-limit obsolete. In respect of the
obsolete. In respect of the prosecution of women who want to take termination of pregnancy in
take termination of pregnancy in typical circumstances. He explains that the new clause 20 amendment would repeal the abortion law offences, including offences
relating to a late abortion.
In other words, new clause 20 would
fully repeal all the existing laws
that prohibit abortion in any circumstances at any gestation, both in relation to a woman undergoing an
abortion and abortion providers or clinicians performing abortions. I know the honourable member for
Walthamstow in the second iteration offer amendment has added a clause that seeks to amend the abortion act
to create the impression that a time-limit would remain. However, the abortion act only provides
exemptions against prosecution under laws that new clause 20 would repeal.
These offences would no
longer remain under new clause 20.
And since the abortion act itself contains no penalties or offences, nor with the proposed amendment
introduce any. Adding a mere mention of ongoing time-limit in the act
would be toothless and utterly meaningless under the law. New clause 20 would the factory have the
effect of fully decriminalising abortion up to full term, both for
women and abortion providers. You
don't need to just take my word for it.
It's not often you will hear me agree with the British pregnancy advisory service, the U.K.'s leading
abortion provider, but its own assessment of new clause 20 concludes that it would, " Largely
render the abortion act of 1967
obsolete." And create a regulatory tuner around abortion provision and access. But there is one additional
angle numbers need to be aware of here. Regarding new clause 20, the
legal opinion defines that the effect of the amendment is that a
woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believes the child to be female
would face no criminal sanction in
connection with that reason or at all.
Similarly on new clause one can be opinion confirms it would, " Not
be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home solely on the basis that the foetus is
female." These amendments are not pro-woman. They will introduce sex
selective abortion. Sex selective abortion is really happening in this country. I can 2012 the Telegraph
investigation found that doctors at UK clinics were agreeing to
terminate foetuses because they were male or female. A BBC investigation in 2018 found non-invasive prenatal tests being widely used to determine
a baby sex early in pregnancy.
Leading to pressure imposed on some women to have sex selective
abortions. The sevens led the Labour Party to urge a ban on such tests being used to determine the sex of
babies in the womb. A Nuffield Council on by ethics report similarly found several websites
were privately offering tests to determine the sex of a baby and the council warned that the increasing
prevalence of private testing may be encouraging sex selective abortions.
Passing new clause 1 or new clause 20 would likely make the situation worse.
In conclusion, what we are
facing here is an extreme set of
amendments going way beyond what public dominion demands of a beyond
what is happening in any other country in the world. country in the world.
18:09
Maya Ellis MP (Ribble Valley, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I write in support of both NC1
and NC 20. I'm someone who chooses to spend the majority of my time in this place focusing on women, 51% of
the population, mothers, parents, women's health and maternity and I would like to specifically address
the comments of the foetus against a mother. Despite the fact 40% of
women MPs are women, and despite the
fact that everyone of us represents constituents with 51% women, I read here women's issues being discussed here and yet on every issue in this House there is an angle that affects
women differently and those caring
for women Tiffany and yet we don't speak about it.
And so when people speak against abortion in any form, I am stupefied by the bubble within
which they speak from. They also speak out about the risk of giving birth when two thirds of maternity
wards are deemed unsafe by the Care Quality Commission? I doubt it. Or they speak out about the fact that
1.6 million, more than 16 were million women are kept out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities, seven times
more than men? I doubt it. They speak out about children in terrier condition, the extortionate cost of childcare, medical negligence, the
destination -- decimation of Sure Start? I doubt it.
Until honourable
members have done their time this was making about 1,000 times better for mothers and parents as a needs
to be, suggested reflecting the audacity of making judgement in isolation today. Every decision we
make in this place becomes relevant relative to its context. A woman who ends up in the truly agonising
position of having an abortion is protecting a life. She is protecting
her own. Hers is the life you choose
to vote against if you vote against these amendments.
Hers is the life you are choosing to discard. As others have said, the amendments
before us today in reality will
affect very few people but will critically mean that while a woman is the carrier of a child, she will not be criminalised for anything to
do with or within her body. Given how little the world tends to care about women and their bodies, I
personally trust those individual women far more than any state or judicial system that has yet to prove they can properly support the rights of women, and that's why I
will be voting for this and any amendment that furthers the rights
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of women over their own body. I believe that both lives matter
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy. Both the mums life and the child's life. Often abortion is framed as a choice
18:11
Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
abortion is framed as a choice between the rights of the mother and the child. I reject that framing but
today we are considering to amendments that would be bad for
both women and unborn children. And one amendment, NC 106 that would
protect both women and unborn babies
who were old enough to survive outside of the womb. In the last Parliament I come along with a
number of colleagues, warned that the hills by post scheme that home
abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerously late abortions and coerced abortions.
Sadly these warnings have become a reality. A study based on Freedom of Information request NHS
trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion
pill at home provided by the NHS in
2020 needed hospital treatment for complications, and more than 20 per
day. Last December Stuart was jailed after using abortion pills obtained by 1/3 party through the pills by
post scheme to induce an abortion of a pregnant woman against her knowledge or will. Such cases could
have been prevented if abortion providers had not pushed in the face of warnings about precisely such
incidents for the removal of in- person appointments where a woman's identity and gestation of age could be accurately verified and any
health risks assessed.
This issue of an accurate gestation or age that is
indirectly led to the amendments before us today. Abortion providers have themselves conceded and I quote
Jonathan Lord, former medical
director, only three women had ever
been on trial for a legal abortions.
Since then there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit a small number compared to the quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in
the United Kingdom. This more rights and prosecutions has been caused by the pills by post scheme which is enabled women either because they
must calculate the registration age or dishonestly to obtain abortion
pills beyond the 10 week limit when at home abortions are legal and considered safe for women and even
beyond our 24 week time limit for abortions.
Tragically this has led to viable babies lives being ended.
So what is the answer? Well I suggest it can be to make things, it can't be to make things worse by
neutralising abortion. This would be bad for women and unlock Bourne's
lives, removing the legal deterrents unsupervised abortions that would
put women at risk as well as babies even long after their viable in the womb. This would render our already
very late time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained
without any reliable in-person gestation or age check.
There is an
alternative solution here, to end pills by post scheme and reinstate in-person consultation. That's why I am supporting NC 106 today, and the
public supports it also. New polling has found that just 4% of women support the current pills by post
Two thirds want to return to in- person appointments. Decriminalisation may allow the problems with pills by post scheme to be covered up, but it won't stop the problems happening. In fact it will incentivise more dangerous late
term abortions are viable babies.
Living close by speaking to Northern Ireland. When the Member for Walthamstow hijacked the Northern
Ireland information act to impose abortion on Northern Ireland, she argued that the women in Northern Ireland faced decriminalisation because they did not have access to
the same abortion as here in the UK.
Let me be very clear, Northern Ireland is very different. Northern Ireland does not have the pills by
post Northern Ireland, so therefore it cannot be made as a direct correlation with here in GB. And I
would ask people to support NC 106 to that end.
to that end.
18:15
Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you. I think it's worth being absolutely clear today about
what new clause 1 does and doesn't do. New clause 1 would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women
who end their own pregnancy. New clause 1 does not change the
abortion time limit. It remains. The rules around telemedicine remain. The requirement for two doctors to
sign off remains. And in recent years, there has been what I consider a worrying rise in the
number of people investigated, prosecuted and even imprisoned under the law.
These prosecutions are deeply distressing, and in most
I do not think it is right, in the context of what is actually
happening in investigations, that any woman be prosecuted. The harm caused by the number of investigations and prosecutions,
where it is not justified, I think that outweighs that, so I just wanted to address that question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fully. A constituent of mine came to see me yesterday and explained that when
me yesterday and explained that when she was 16, she was coerced into a
she was 16, she was coerced into a forced marriage. She had not been allowed to have sex education, when she became pregnant she did not
she became pregnant she did not realise and it was only when her mother noticed that she managed to access a legal abortion, but she
access a legal abortion, but she could been in a situation where she would have had to, get out of the marriage, to get an abortion, have a
marriage, to get an abortion, have a late abortion.
To you think it would be in public interest to go after women like my constituent, enforced
women like my constituent, enforced marriages, is that helpful.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marriages, is that helpful. I think it is not helpful to go against these women. What new clause 1 retains a criminal prosecution of
1 retains a criminal prosecution of men who force women to have
abortions, or anybody, one in eight known pregnancies end in miscarriage, we have seen women in
subjected to invasive investigations and lengthy legal processes because they have had an abortion or stillbirth. Many colleagues talked
about the distress legal proceedings inflate, whatever the circumstances,
and it took four years to clear her name.
During that time, the scrutiny
she faced was dehumanising, the irrelevant matters treated as evidence of wrongdoing. For every
woman who ends up in court, many more endure police investigations,
often involving phone seizures, and having children removed from their
care. All of this is not only distressing for those women, and
disproportionate, but it makes abortion less safe. If women are scared of being criminalised, they
will not be honest with midwives, GPs or partners. Abortion is health
care at healthcare relies on honest conversations between care providers
and patients.
I would like to me about a bit of the misinformation
that says this clause would allow abusive partners or others to avoid secretion, it only applies to the
woman who ends her own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals who act outside the law, partners, other family members who use violence or coercion would be canalised, just as
they are now. -- Criminalised, just as they are now. What is distressing is the amount of misinformation, I
have seen it within and without this table today. What artefacts? Cute%
of abortions happen before nine weeks.
-- 88% of abortions happen
before nine weeks. I am aware what that means physically and what the
stage the foetus is at. Abortions after 20 weeks make up 0.1% of all
cases. That is due to serious medical reasons, these are not women
ending pregnancies because of convenience, it would not change what is happening with abortion
care, what it will do is protect women from being dragged through
these investigations, in the majority of cases it is inappropriate anyway. Women are unlikely -- extremely unlikely to
try and provoke their own abortion outside these time limits.
A criminal sanction for that,
distressing intrusive, disproportionate investigations, is
entirely disproportionate, it is not in the public interest, it is not in
the public interest subject these women to these investigations. Women
who have abortions, women who have miscarriages, women who have children are not a distinct set of
women. Many of us will experience at
least two of those, if not all three. So let's not try to pit women against each other and let's stop
criminalising women, vulnerable women, in the way that the law does.
It serves no purpose. Today, we can
enter that. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I rise to speak against new clause 1 and 20 and in
18:21
Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
against new clause 1 and 20 and in support of new clause 106. First, it is important for me to say I support women's rights and we get the
18:21
Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
balance right in the UK, protecting this is a hill I will die on. But I
18:21
Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
this is a hill I will die on. But I am disturbed by new clause 1 and new clause 20, which decriminalise abortion up to birth. If this
abortion up to birth. If this becomes law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a
up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences. The reason that we criminalised late
term abortion is not about punishment, it is about protection. Providing a deterrent to such
Providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women.
We protect them from trying to perform
protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home. We protect them from coercive partners and family members who might push them to end a late term pregnancy. I have great
late term pregnancy. I have great respect for the honourable member fraud are who has tabled new clause 1 and we share many of the same
1 and we share many of the same objectives on other topics. On this, I think she has tried to solve a
very real issue, but with the wrong
solution.
These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster,
amongst others, he was prosecuted for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020 in the pandemic. She
carried out the abortion at 32 weeks of pregnancy, after receiving the drugs through the pills by post
scheme, introduced in lockdown. This is a terrible case that demonstrate the floors with the current process.
The issue here is not the commonality... Criminalisation, it
is the fact that she was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place.
She was
failed by people in parliament who voted to allow these pills to be
sent out by mail without an in-
person consultation. That was irresponsible. One that might be forgiven in light of a global pandemic if it had remained
temporary, but, no, in March 2020, it was made permanent. If we want to
protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills
after 24 weeks, and inducing in abortion at home, we must put an end
to the situation where these pills can be acquired without a face-to- face consultation where gestation or age verification, by a medical
professional, can take place.
These are dangerous drugs if not used in
the right way, as we saw when Stuart will be spiked a pregnant woman,
resulting in the miscarriage. The pills by post scheme enabled this
evil man and his accomplice to
commit this crime. It is also important that prior to the scheme,
there have only been three women convicted over the last 160 years for an illegal abortion, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. Since the scheme was
introduced, within an eight month period, according to Jonathan Lord, the medical director at that time,
there have been four women in court on similar charges.
Criminalisation
of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem, the pills by post
scheme is. If new clause one passes what the scheme remains in place, here's what will happen. More women
will attempt late term abortions at home. Some of them will be harmed. Many of these women will not have
realised they are going to deliver something that looks like a baby,
not just blood clots, that will cause huge trauma. Many of them will not have realised how far along they
are due to bleeding, being mistaken for the last period.
Some of these
babies will be alive on delivery. What we need to do is get away from
this terrible habit of only considering issues through a
middle-class lens. What about women sexually exploited? What about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
teenage girls... David Smith. Thank you, I rise to oppose new
18:25
David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, I rise to oppose new clause 1 and 20, and support new clause 106. Through the process of
clause 106. Through the process of recanalisation, one and 20 will introduce the possibility of
abortion up to birth. Typically, this means it will not be illegal for a woman to abort a full-time,
healthy baby. This will change the current position in this country for
the last 58 years, an extreme move which shows the vast majority of the
country does not want.
Only three% of the public support the idea of abortion up to birth, new clause 106
will diminish the risk of women being realised through the institution of in-person
appointments. That is popular. Recent polling showed two thirds of women back a return to in-person
appointments. I do not want to be
standing here talking about abortion, it is not something I came into Parliament to do, I am
conscious that, as a man, I have to be careful when speaking to the experience of women but I feel that these amendments give me no choice
but to speak against them, despite
my respect for the sponsor.
What we are trying to achieve here, if it is the aim of seeking to do, lies women
in difficult situations, I have huge sympathy. Many women traumatised, depending on substances, with
fluctuating mental health, and extensive experience in the criminal justice system, a common theme
amongst us they were abused and harmed from any early age,
consistently into adulthood. Yet the women who we supported had agency,
they had free will, they never the less often confounded the circumstances and raised above. They
also made decisions and regretted, at times when those around them were
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pulled by. A14 years ago, supporting a woman
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A14 years ago, supporting a woman at a hostel who was traumatised by her own decision to abort a child.
her own decision to abort a child. Would he agree, this language about
Would he agree, this language about protecting people, we need to protect people from those decisions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protect people from those decisions when they are not made with the proper safeguards in place. I agree, if something is absolute
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I agree, if something is absolute in terms of the clause, it has to be covering all eventualities, what we
covering all eventualities, what we are trying to say is, I do not
are trying to say is, I do not believe it can. We cannot introduce
such a profound change on a simple hope that no woman would make such a drastic step. If we remove the
possibility of criminal prosecution post 24 weeks, it is a certainty
that some women will take this
drastic step.
I am afraid I will make some progress. In 2024, there were one quarter of a million
abortions, if only one% of these took place as late term, this would
mean 2,500 late term abortions. We also risk the rise of backstreet
abortions. Imagine a scenario in which a woman knows she cannot be prosecuted under the law, but for
some reason which is always pressured into going ahead with one.
Surely, at this stage she is more likely to order pills by post, not considered safe to take outside
clinical context after 10 weeks, pretending to be under the legal
limit or seek to procure an off the books abortion.
These amendments are
seeking to address the perceived problem of police blooms. By making
if an interchange to abortion law, that will put more women at risk and
risk the lives of children....
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He is giving a speech that I think many in this House will find
think many in this House will find difficult to hear from such a wonderful friend and colleague. Does
wonderful friend and colleague. Does he agree with me that lots of women are already facing incredibly
difficult situations and lots of women could already have a late term
women could already have a late term abortion and order port online, -- pills online, we do not want to criminalise those who are not doing
criminalise those who are not doing that, does he agree that the majority of women are doing the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
right thing? I thank my honourable friend for that intervention, I do agree, the vast majority are doing the right
vast majority are doing the right thing. But I do not believe we can cover all eventualities by such a fundamental black-and-white change.
fundamental black-and-white change. The real problem is the temporary
pills by post scheme, not requiring an in-person appointment, has been
made permanent. That is why I added my name. Interpersonal payments would remove any doubt about the
gestation of age of a foetus and reduce the likelihood of successful coercion, something I have seen
throughout my work.
This would remove the possibility of egregious
police overreach time are my colleagues are concerned about. I will come to a conclusion, the
choice for colleagues here is clear,
to prove the biggest change to abortion law in 58 years, whilst potentially, I believe, making
things worse for women, or solve the problem of criminal justice
overreach by reinstating in-person appointment for abortion. I will
just finish with this, this is clearly a difficult subject, I just feel this is not the right way to go
about such a divisive and emotive subject as an amendment.
I will
subject as an amendment. I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arrester speak against NC1 and NC 20 which represent rushed changes to
20 which represent rushed changes to our abortion laws are profound
our abortion laws are profound consequences not only for the unborn child before women themselves. My fear is that if past these clauses would undermine the ability prosecute abusive partners who force
women into near pregnancy and inadvertently lead to more dangerous and highly distressing at home
18:31
Julia Lopez MP (Hornchurch and Upminster, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
abortions and risk reducing the status of an unborn child to a legal nonentity. I wish also to put on record my deep unease with continued
attempts to lasso unrelated legislation with amendments on abortion. Whether one supports
liberalisation or not, we should all be able to agree that these amendments represent substantial
change to the existing law. As MPs...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm afraid the honourable member is not actually stating what my
is not actually stating what my amendment actually does. My amendment takes women out of the criminal justices to. This is the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Crime and Policing Bill. Was also expressing my concerns about other amendments that have
about other amendments that have been tabled, but I also believe that nonetheless this is a substantial change that she is proposing that
deserves more than a two-hour debate
deserves more than a two-hour debate amongst backbenchers. We are not TSMC to express our opinions for an ideal world or even to focus only on
highly distressing cases. We are legislators, and no greater legislative duty exist than to make sure that what we do in this House does not lead to unintended
does not lead to unintended consequences in the real world for the most vulnerable.
We are being asked to rewrite a profound boundary
asked to rewrite a profound boundary in British law that protects the unborn child with two hours of
debate on a Tuesday afternoon. It is not responsible lawmaking. It's
procedural ambush. It's telling that
not even the promoters of the bill
can agree. It is worth us recalling previous efforts to amend bills in
this way and their consequences. The temporary pills by post scheme brought in during the crisis of the pandemic was made permanent by
amendment hooked with little notice on to an unrelated bill.
And what
have we seen since? Women accessing pills under false names and gestation crates, taking them far beyond the recommended 10 week
limit, viable babies lost in late term abortions carried out. This is not women's healthcare. It is legal
and medical failure. I'm afraid there are simply not enough time.
And that failure is now being used to justify the loosening of abortion laws still further due to a recent
uptick in cases of women being investigated. And have looked carefully at some of the argument is being pushed for deep criminal eyes
-- decriminalisation.
And the honourable member from Walthamstow
says the bogeyman is back. Unless we agree to these amendments, medical
groups paid for with US cash will start rolling back women's reproductive rights in this country. This is utter nonsense. We are in
the UK. We have a very different and more balanced national conversation. This is not pro or anti life, it is not extremist to one protections for
viable babies that it is not antiwoman to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not
be outside the reach of the law.
We also see the argument that this is
solely a women's health issue and nobody but she should have a say
over what happens to her body, but that is to ignore every inconvenient truth that has always stalked the
abortion debate. This is not about one body. There are two bodies involved. Like it or not, this House
has a duty to consider the rights of a woman against the safety and morality of aborting the unborn
viable child without consequence. It is not extreme or anti women to say
that a baby matters too.
I accept the NC1 does not decriminalise a doctor or third party carrying out
an abortion outside existing tablets, but let's step back and ask why we have criminal law at all?
It's not simply to punish but to deter stop the former justice minister Laura Farris has also expressed concerns that the
challenging of prosecution in relation to infanticide becomes greater. She also raised similar
concerns about prosecuting coercive partners if the termination is no longer a criminal offence.
18:35
Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Tom Hayes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to start by aligning myself with and commending the speeches of my honourable friends from Morecambe and Leominster,
from Morecambe and Leominster, Ribble Valley, Monmouthshire, Gower and Walthamstow. I am proud to stand
and Walthamstow. I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues and to listen to what they had to say today. And because of what they had to say today, I have less to say
to say today, I have less to say which will allow more people to speak. I'm sent here, constituents
speak.
I'm sent here, constituents to defend and further their right to safe and legal abortions. My inbox
safe and legal abortions. My inbox has been inundated by constituents who are concerned and who want to be able to have safe and legal
able to have safe and legal abortions. Want to be removed from
the criminal justices to. As my honourable friend Figueroa said, because we have situations where
because we have situations where clinically vulnerable women who have gone through some of the worst
experiences that any body could go through would be arrested straight from the hospital ward in some cases, hurried to cells, and made to
feel unmitigated levels of shame and guilt on top of the physical and
mental traumas that they have already experienced.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He's articulating exactly the point here, which is that very few women if any at all take the
women if any at all take the decision to have an abortion lightly. It's incredibly difficult,
painful and hard decision that is
painful and hard decision that is physically and mentally very tough to deal with. Do they agree with me
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to deal with. Do they agree with me that that's the crux of doing here, alleviating some of the pain that those women are having to go through? I thank for that really powerful intervention. I completely agree,
intervention. I completely agree, and if in this place we could do one important thing today, which is to send the signal, we wish to
send the signal, we wish to alleviate that pain, we should do it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. Is he aware of the fact that it is impossible medically to determine
if somebody has had a miscarriage or they have used abortion pills? So the cases that are being brought
forward to these women do not have a scientific or medical basis, only
suspicion, and others, and so actually if we really wanted to protect the women, we would make
sure that she had the right advice and the right medical support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
throughout her pregnancy. I do agree, and it takes me to the points that were made by my
honourable friend for Ribble Valley where she talked about over many years women have been denied access
years women have been denied access
years women have been denied access to the healthcare, the advice, the guidance, the childcare, the other infrastructure that is so critical to a woman's quality-of-life command
to a woman's quality-of-life command we need to be ending that.. I get taken on to another point by my honourable friend which is around
honourable friend which is around new clause 106.
I've listened to the
proposer, listened to those on the opposite benches who were making cases in support of it, and I'm afraid I don't agree. Because there
afraid I don't agree. Because there is nothing in the clinical evidence
is nothing in the clinical evidence available to support that new clause amendment, and somebody who ran a domestic abuse and mental health
charity for five years before I was elected, I am very painfully aware of the trauma and difficulties that
women who have been domesticated abused will go through, and I don't want them to feel on top of that
shame and trauma about trying to access abortion services.
As it is important we think about those
people, and I forget who it was a liberal Democrat benches who make
this point, but I can see over there, there was a really important
point made about poor people who are unable to access the transport links to access clinics. A really important point about our infrastructure being broken down
such as bus connectivity. This is the legacy of the last 14 years, but it's the legacy we must nonetheless condemned not content with. Women
will be impeded to the abortion services as a consequence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with the advice from the Royal College of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the Royal College general practitioners, the Royal College
practitioners, the Royal College midwives, the Royal pharmaceutical Society and the faculty of sexual reproductive health and the BMA who all know much more than we do about
all know much more than we do about the issue to vote firmly against NC1 06 because it makes women more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
vulnerable? I agree with them and I agree with him. And I want to come to a
with him. And I want to come to a final point here, which is there was an argument made by the honourable member for Hornchurch & Upminster
member for Hornchurch & Upminster about somehow a bogeyman of American politics being conjured up by my
honourable friend Walthamstow. I
represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency being past Bournemouth was targeted by the US vice
president JD Vance when he made his point around buffer zones and around abortion access.
I have spoken with
the people who work at the clinic since, spoken with four that speech
was given, and they are scared. They
want to support reproductive rights of women, want to support the health and safety of women that they are expecting situations where the
figures been tampered with, where women who were seeking the support of the clinical finding their access
impeded. They are concerned stop we in this place need to be sensitive to what we say and how we say it.
As
around our constituencies, are people who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women and he will be
looking to us to send the right signal about how we conduct our politics. I will close by saying that I was a co-sponsor of new
that I was a co-sponsor of new
clause 1 and new clause 20. Recognise a vote will be only clause 1 first and will be voting in favour of it, and I will be calling on all
members across this House to be doing the same.
18:41
Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
We have an out of times we need to go to the front benches and go to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Is the case on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today as I
whipped by my party today as I believe is the case across the House. That said we passed relevant policy at our party conference and I
policy at our party conference and I will lay that out before talking a
will lay that out before talking a little about my predecessor's work is about in 1937 act and explain why in a personal capacity and will be supporting some but not all of the
supporting some but not all of the amendments before us today.
The liberal Democrats believe that women have a right to make independent decisions over their reproductive health without interference by the
health without interference by the state and access to productive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most
current law impacts the most vulnerable of women under current legislation some can be tracked from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of
endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even
introduced before women were even allowed to vote.
So it's not surprising that many see the need
for them to be updated. In the past five years, there have been debates
about both whether the police have access to the resources they need to keep our community safe and a surge
of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their own pregnancies outside the law. This
surely cannot be the best use of police time. LibDem policies to
ensure proper funding for impartial advice services so people can
receive comprehensive and biased information without being pressured.
And because access to abortion should never be made more stressful, we will maintain safe zones around
clinics to protect those seeking care. My predecessor as the Liberal
MP for Hazel Grove, the late Doctor
Michael Winstanley later Lord Winstanley was key in shaping the abortion act of 1967, working as part of a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who saw both
refine the language and the strategy of that vital piece of legislation.
He continues to be mentioned on the doorsteps of my constituency and he is known among other things for bringing calm, professional insight
to the debate.
Drawing on his background as a general practitioner
to ground the discussion in medical evidence. He was able to draw on his medical knowledge and experience as
a GP throughout the process and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when
abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal regulated
abortion was not only safer but more humane. At the end of this debate I will be joining the World Health Organisation, the Royal College
gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, practitioners and the end violence against coalition in
supporting new clause 1.
To be clear, this amendment would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit for it. And it
would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. Healthcare professionals acting
outside of the law and abusive
partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised in the same way as they are now. I was under very strict
encouragement from the chair to be
very speedy, so I won't. But I very much support the spirit of new
clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106.
Acknowledge the movers wish the women to be able to access
the best healthcare available, but making it harder for women to access the treatment they need whether
that's women in a coercive relationship or those who simply live in a rural area with limited transport options to access in
person medical appointments would be a step backwards. Telemedicine
remains timely, accessible for abortion care, and when we speak in
this House of the strain on our NHS services, when it comes to space,
staffing capacity, it feels entirely retrograde to be rolling the service back and inserting clinically
unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support it.
These amendments before us today are free votes and so members can choose for themselves rightly. But I very much hope we
choose to move forwards not back. choose to move forwards not back.
18:45
Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you. In recent weeks and months in this House we have become
familiar to votes of conscience. The amendments today which I will speak
to new clauses 1, 20 and 106 are no different. So while I'm here responding to his Majesty's official
opposition on these, our benches will have free votes and take their
views express on my own, and I fully recognise there may be colleagues in my side who disagree with me. I
recognise both new clauses 1 and 20 have been tabled with the very best of intent by both the honourable
of intent by both the honourable
I say, unequivocally, I share the aims.
As do my honourable friend's
who have all spoken today. I do not
believe, however, that Newport is one Newport is 120 achieve the
safeguarding of women that members seek. Views on abortion do not have to be absolutist. Being pro-choice
is not incompatible to being pro-
life when the foetus is at a stage of being inherently viable. Leaving women should have the autonomy over
their bodies does not negate the need for a system that safeguard
women from physical and emotional harm.
As we have heard, new clause 1
would have the effect of ensuring a pregnant woman is not criminalised for accessing an abortion during her
pregnancy. It would, however, retained the law for the provision of abortion within healthcare settings. Effectively, a woman in
England and would be able to legally abort an unborn child and do so at
her own means at any moment prior to a natural birth but a healthcare professional would be breaking the
law if they tried to help her to do so without -- when outside the 24
**** Possible New Speaker ****
week limit. These new clauses are compatible
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These new clauses are compatible with the 67 act, an act of this Parliament ceases to be unlawful, it
Parliament ceases to be unlawful, it loses its force, and therefore loses
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the purpose. That cannot be allowed to stand on the record. I thank the Member for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Member for that intervention, on one hand, abortion
intervention, on one hand, abortion will be decriminalised whilst on the other, restrictions on her ability to access the procedure in a safe
to access the procedure in a safe setting would remain. We must be
careful not to create a law that has unintended consequences. Especially for those it is designed to help, especially when those who need to
especially when those who need to rely on it are likely in a state of stress or distress.
New clause 1
raises many questions, is it tenable
to legalise all but full-term abortions in and Wales but not other parts of the UK? What would be the legal implications should a woman
travel 10 miles across the border to carry out an abortion after the 24
week limit in place in Scotland? How do we monitor such abortions when,
in line with the amendment, they would occur outside a healthcare
setting. How do we ensure that a mother's health is protected and supported, both physical and mental
health.
And what happens to the foetus once delivered, should the abortion be outside a healthcare
setting? As we heard, new clause 20 goes further than clause 1 in many aspects, many of my concerns remain.
New clause 1 is in the name of right honourable friend, it would mandate that an in-person consolation is required prior to a pregnant woman
being prescribed medication to terminate. This amendment is not
about making abortions harder to access, and abortion should, of course, be readily available to
those who need and want it.
Of
course, abortion medication should be easily accessible during the appropriate stages of pregnancy. This amendment is about safety, both
for the mother and unborn child. Face to face appointment are
commonplace for patients with a wide range of conditions. In particular,
when prescribing new medications. A private, in-person consultation allows a doctor to be as sure as they possible can that the woman is
acting under her own, informed, free will. Her mental state is assessed and understood, and to reduce as much as possible the likelihood that
medication is being used or abused.
Taking medication cannot -- Kelly
medication can never be a replace
for the relationship in face-to-face appointments. It has serious
shortcomings. Whilst, of course, I stressed there have been many cases where abortion medicine has been
misused following the scheme. Not all of these will be put that down
to misuse, there have been many more hospitalisations of women following the use of education and that is something we should be concerned
something we should be concerned
In an attempt to restrict access to abortions, I would not support it if
it was, instead, it is an act of importance to safeguard and protect women from the emotional trauma and physical harm.
18:50
Alex Davies-Jones MP (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, let me begin by
emphasising that all women in England and can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS. I recognise and respect there are
strongly held views on this highly sensitive issue and I welcome the
debate from both sides today. The government maintained a neutral stance in terms of changing criminal
law. And it maintains it is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion
should take place, allowing members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious police.
If the
will of the House is that the law should change, whether by exempting women or otherwise, the government
would not stand in the way of such change. But we must ensure coherence with the statute book on any legislation proposed. With that in
mind, I will turn to the details of each amendment, but I will first set out the relevant law. First, the
criminal offences relating to abortion must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the abortion act 1967, which provides exemptions.
The act defines the criteria under
which abortions or terminations can take place.
Sections 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is the offence of administering
drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion. It is an offence to unlawfully take a drug or
use instruments. It is also an offence for another person with
intent to procure a miscarriage of a woman, whether or not she is pregnant, to unlawfully administer drugs use instruments with that
intent. It is an offence under
section 59 for a person to supply or procure drugs to poison or
instrument to procure an instrument.
And section 1 of another act it is
an offence for any person to
potentially destroy life of a child capable of being born alive, unless it can be proved it was done in good faith and to preserve the life of
the woman. I turned to the clauses in question. New clause 1, the
purpose of this is to discipline existing from not offences relating to abortion in respect of a woman
acting in relation to her own pregnancy and any gestation. This means it would never be, not offence) women to terminate her
pregnancy, regardless of the number of weeks of gestation.
I will not give way, we are short on time. It
would also be... Not be a criminal offence for a woman to deceive a
registered medical protesting -- practitioner to procure abortion pills. Beyond the 10 week time
limit. It would remain an offence for another person, such as the
doctor, to do the relevant act and a pregnant woman to do the relevant
act in respect of another woman unless the provisions are applied. New clause 160 ensure woman cannot
commit an offence in relation to her own pregnancy.
Including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the
Person Act. And the infant life
preservation act. The phrase, related to abortion, is not defined but this will be limited to these
provisions there are no other provisions that relate. It was suggested in the recent debate that
the risk of neutral is one it
creates a general power for the Secretary of State to amend the act or the criminal legislation. I would
like to clarify, it does not create such a power.
Nor do any other
provisions. New clause one does not grant the Secretary of the additional legislation powers,
whilst clause 166 of the Crime and Policing Bill does grant them a
regulation making power in the relation of the provisions of the bill, it can only be exercised to make provisions that are
appropriate. It would not, for
example, if the Secretary of state general powers to make substantive
changes. To change the rules, all of the offences act, to reintroduce,
fences, that would not be consequential to new clause 1.
I will turn to new clause 20, tabled
by my honourable friend. This repeals existing criminal offences
dating to abortion and concealment of a birth, places a duty on the 60
of state and creates a regulation making powers. I will not give way,
I will begin by saying, this is complex and I will not be addressing
all of the provisions or policy intentions. However, I will highlight areas where the House
might want to consider the duties or delegated powers might be unclear or give rise to unintended
consequences.
I want to acknowledge that my honourable friend's approach seeks to mirror the model in
Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise the circumstances were
different to England and. There was no functioning executive, no
provision of abortion services, and no equivalent to the abortion act.
Provision had to be made to create a regime for abortion services. The approach to decriminalising abortion
in England and Wales needs to
reflect the distinct legal context. New clause 20 imposes a duty on the
Secretary of State to implement paragraphs 85 and 86.
In England and
Wales. This report contains
recommendations relating to criminal law which would already be addressed
by the repeating of the offences by subsection 2 and four. The report also includes recommendations that
go beyond the provision, such as on
the provision of sexual and reproductive health and education. As I mentioned, the report and its
regulations were developed in a specific, context of Northern Ireland and they reflect the
position there. The position in England and Wales is different.
Existing services address many of the recommendations. I will turn to
the criminal law aspect. Subsection
2 and three repeal tax and 58, 59 and 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act. As well as the infant life preservation act. Repealing
these offences would remove liability for a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy and decriminalise any other person doing
the relevant act to a pregnant woman or in relation to the body of a
child, for example, they would no longer be a specific offence to
cover cases of forced abortion, this would mean situations in which an individual subjected a pregnant
woman to finance and they will be dealt with under different offences relating to assault and bodily harm
rather than section 58 of the infant
life preservation act.
The moratorium contained in subsection 4 would also discontinue these cases,
so, for example, those suspected of forcing a woman to have an abortion could not be investigated for these
offences. Subsection 2 also seeks to
repeal section 60, which criminalises concealing a birth by disposing of a child body after the
birth. Unlike sections 58 and 59, this offence is not limited to
abortion -related acts, repealing it entirely could therefore create a gap in the law regarding non-
abortion. Whilst I understand the
concern about investigations under
section 60, a full repeal might have unintended consequences.
I wanted to address a point about existing offences covering this. It requires
a positive act coupled with an ulterior content that the course of
justice will be perverted, therefore it is not necessarily the same and would not want to provide unintended
consequences. Subsection 12 grant the Secretary of state powers, said
director certain restrictions. It
could create offences. I do not comment on the policy intent, the
House exercises the full powers of scrutiny over the introduction of new offences rather than conferring
power on the Secretary of state to do so.
I want to come to new clause
106, tabled by the honourable member. It deals with the abortion act. The intended purpose of one six
is to require women to attend an in-person consultation, section 13
of the abortion act does not apply to consultations which take place before the medicine is prescribed,
women would continue to have consultations, but would then be
required to travel to a hospital or clinic for an in-person consultation before self administering the
medicine. All women could have an in-person consultation to be prescribed the medication and then
it could be posted.
The overall effect would mean no woman could legally have an at home, early
medical abortion. In conclusion, if it is the will of Parliament that the law should change, the
government will fulfil its duty to ensure the legislation is robust and
will work closely with noble friend to ensure it reflects the will of
Parliament. The government takes no position, I hope these observations
are helpful to the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that new clause 1 new clause 1B read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division,
19:00
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, New Clause 1
-
Copy Link
Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated Colleagues should be seated at Colleagues should be seated at this moment. The question is as on the
order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes are Luke
Taylor and Katrina Murray. Tellers for the noes Andrew Snowden and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The Ayes to the right, 379, the
Noes to the left, 137.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noes to the left, 137. The Ayes to the right, 379, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Ayes to the right, 379, the Noes to left, 137. The Ayes have it,
Noes to left, 137. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Unlock! Order, order. Under the order of the House,
order. Under the order of the House, I must put the questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a
conclusion. The question is new clause 1 be added to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Ayes
have it.
New clause 106 has been
selected. A decision, I caught Doctor Caroline Johnson to move
formally.
formally.
The question is that new clause 1... 106 be added to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and
19:17
Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, New Clause 106
-
Copy Link
of the contrary, "No". Division,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Colleagues Colleagues need Colleagues need to Colleagues need to be Colleagues need to be exiting Colleagues need to be exiting the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Colleagues need to be exiting the chamber, quickly and quietly.
chamber, quickly and quietly. Colleagues should be seated. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say,
"Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the Ayes, Andrew Snowdon and David Simmonds, Tellers for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order Order order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order order. The ayes to the right, 117. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right, 117. The
noes to the left, 379.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left, 379. The ayes to the right, 117. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right, 117. The noes to the left, 379. So the noes
noes to the left, 379. So the noes One has been selected for separate
One has been selected for separate decision. I called Tonya to move the amendment formally. The question is the amendment one be made. As many
as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have
it, the ayes have it. Built to be further considered, what date?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tomorrow. Point of order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Point of order right now? Grateful. Irrespective of our
19:33
Point of Order
-
Copy Link
position on the vote we have just taken, the fights rather, we have to acknowledge that we have made a major change to abortion law. And
major change to abortion law. And yet that was on the basis of no evidence session, no committee stage
evidence session, no committee stage scrutiny, 46 minutes just 46 minutes of backbench debate and a Government
of backbench debate and a Government minister windup who refused to take any interventions. And that's when
any interventions. And that's when the chamber is full of single one like debates, so could you give me any advice on if we want to continue
any advice on if we want to continue like this, how can we improve so we don't have the situation in the future?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Point of order, to be clear, nothing has happened that is out of
nothing has happened that is out of
nothing has happened that is out of order. Your point is more one of frustration than process and procedure. It is not a point of order for the chair. I'm going to be
order for the chair. I'm going to be moving business on. Motion four on betting, gaming and lotteries. The
betting, gaming and lotteries. The question is... Colleagues. If you are exiting the chamber, exit
are exiting the chamber, exit quietly.
If I'm on my feet, you should be seated. The question is
should be seated. The question is the. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No."
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. I beg to move this House do now adjourn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
adjourn. I will give the frontbenchers a
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this House The question is that this House do
now adjourn. Doctor Rupa Huq.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Joe Biden's recent diagnosis of prostate cancer in the
19:35
Dr Rupa Huq MP (Ealing Central and Acton, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
diagnosis of prostate cancer in the spotlight -- put it in the
spotlight. 's Holland, Robert De Niro. Almost 50,000 men are
diagnosed with prostate cancer yearly and 1.5 million worldwide, which is projected to double by
2014. -- 2040. With one in eight men diagnosed during the life, is the most common male cancer. Over half our preretirement even like Sir
Charles Haughey... Sorry, Sir Chris Hoy, the cyclist at 48, but 70+ is
the most common age. And my late dad was 69 when diagnosed.
He left this
earth just shy of the 79th birthday
in August 2014, so he had 10 years, and its often say men die with prostate cancer, not of it. My dad
it spread to bone cancer but actually was pneumonia which was the cause of death on the certificate. I miss him every day, and treatment for prostate cancer has improved
dramatically since. One crucial breakthrough is that of element of
the drug Abbey), a great British success story, discovered and
initially developed in London at the Institute of Cancer Research.
A shining example of British science leading the world revolutionising
advanced prostate care.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think the honourable member for giving way, and I wonder if she could reiterate a question I have
for the Minister, specifically, given that the drug is already approved for use in Scotland and
approved for use in Scotland and Wales, what action is minister
taking to ensure that men in England is not disadvantaged in access to life-saving cancer treatment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
life-saving cancer treatment. The honourable member reads my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable member reads my mind, postcode lottery in which I will come to my list of questions, dunno my honourable friend is very synthetic. Now she is on the right
synthetic. Now she is on the right side too. It's now a global drug. Half a million men around the world to have her transformed outcomes, improved qualities of life and extra
improved qualities of life and extra years spent with loved ones... What
**** Possible New Speaker ****
years spent with loved ones... What an honour to be giving way to the honourable gentleman from Strangford of course. Can I thank the honourable lady
for leading this. She is absolutely right to do it and congratulate her
on it. The honourable lady may not
be aware that in Northern Ireland ), the drug is not used for prostate
the drug is not used for prostate
cancer unlike Scotland and Wales. It is mainly for advanced prostate cancer that is orally spread.
When it can bring access to an individual
funding request does not as standard have a first-line treatment option so does the envelope not agree that men in Northern Ireland and in England right here should be able to
access treatment that is available
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in Scotland and Wales? He makes a very powerful point,
and we are seeing a theme here of the uneven application. The rule of law means the law applies to everyone, so looks like some has gone wrong here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gone wrong here. I thank the unrelated for giving way, and for securing this important adjournment debates. We've heard from a number of members now who have constituents or frustrations
have constituents or frustrations with the current system. I met a gentleman called David in the run-up
gentleman called David in the run-up to the general election. He has metastatic prostate cancer and is not eligible for abiraterone, and he
not eligible for abiraterone, and he asked me if we would push and do what we couldn't argument to make
what we couldn't argument to make sure that people like him people --
sure that people like him people -- in Parliament, does she agree with me that we need to have another look at this?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do agree with him that it shouldn't be based on how deep your
pockets. It should be on need. And abiraterone also half the risk of relapse. Each relapse literally costs the NHS millions. The
definition of lose lose, so it's already as many members have pointed
out, successfully available on the
NHS. It is routinely used for metastatic cases in England, but sadly there is a catch. Abiraterone
is not available on the NHS with men with non-metastatic prostate cancer living in England.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would like to thank my honourable friend bringing this very important
friend bringing this very important debate to her constituents and my constituents and people in the UK. Doesn't she agree that since this
Doesn't she agree that since this was assessed last, there has been
was assessed last, there has been significant of elements both as mentioned by number of colleagues, the provision in other nations of
this drug, but also the drug is now available of Peyton, so much cheaper in terms of access, which will change fundamentally the cost
change fundamentally the cost benefit analysis that nice did previously and did she not agree with me that whilst patients in
Scotland and Wales are benefiting from the stroke, her constituents and my constituents need the stroke just as much as constituents in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those nations? -- This drug. West of London meets the same as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
West of London meets the same as West of Scotland and West of Wales and all those other nations. Said
these men can access abiraterone only in Scotland and Wales but not in England even with an identical
diagnosis, just seems anomalous. When your postcode, your prognosis
determines your treatment. And we all know that the NHS is meant to be
free at the point of need. I would give anything to have had locker with my dad, and I was reminded of him when, like the honourable
gentleman opposite I had someone come and see me Peter trade God who pointed out how he is falling
through these cracks and coming to
advice surgery.
He had a long- standing diagnosis with remission,
and he diligently followed all the advice 20 years under NHS monitoring because he had heightened PSA levels, although he was actually
offered an MRI or an ultrasound at all. Then last year his cancer came back and he was told he was going to need hormone and radiation therapy.
Now abiraterone was not offered, so Peter it appears is one of the one
in three who get the devastating
news that cancer has come back, and it appears he is denied access to treatment that could save or extend
his life.
And was the first actually heard of this drug because I think as Mr Higginbotham from Uxbridge said in my dad's day wouldn't have been sufficient. But it's now a
generic drug gone of Peyton only
licensed for metastatic cases, and there was a complicated convoluted process. My honourable friend the Minister knows very well to get it
approved for non-metastatic cases. So there was no question of the
effectiveness. It's at one of the biggest trials known to mankind, generally by beating, and the NHS England's own clinical priorities
advisory group when they plot the clinical benefit and the net cost against the to commit scores highest
in the tabulation.
It's Related to years of abiraterone treatment at
half the death rate for men with locally advanced prostate cancer. But we hear that its budgetary
challenges, I've written to the Minister have put in questions, not
identify the current budget to support it. And if you look long- term, again the permissions of the
cost of chemotherapy, all the associated things, hospital
appointments, it does add up. So UCL found the point at which it would pay for itself would be if it was
£11 a day.
And you know what the NHS is actually paying? Anyone want to hazard a guess? Or we are not doing:
Response, anyway attach the cost £2.75 a day now it's off Peyton and
it's come down first less than three measly quid to avoid costly relapses and all the staff, scans, chemo, hospital appointments. Less than three little round ones to improve
lives and reduce deaths, and as we heard, the only option is that those who can fork out up front for private treatment or private medical
insurance, and again our NHS was not meant to be for private profiteering, for big pharma drug
pushers, and people are seeing their pensions and life savings evaporate.
We are in a cost-of-living crisis. This should be universally
available. Abiraterone was approved for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. It took less than one year
in Scotland, Wales to do this. It's now three years and counting in
England, and we are still not with a concrete resolution. And right now,
it's the cheapest and most cost- effective it's ever been. And as the excellent prostate Cancer UK put it,
the postcode lottery must end. Lord Darzi's independent investigations into the NHS found higher cancer
mortality rates in the UK than in
other comparable countries, and actually progress sadly is flatlining in diagnosing cancer at
stages one and two.
Just over half of prostate cancers are caught up in early-stage falling well short of
the NHS target of 75%. And I appreciate that we are just coming
in after 14 years of the other side, so it's going to take time to fix, but we need our health system. To be
more responsive to act early
rapidly, to use all the tools that we can and be preventative rather than after-the-fact care. In every case. And abiraterone exemplar fires
all these. I welcome the Chancellor's 3% real terms increase
in NHS spending to deliver the exciting plan to build an NHS fit for the future, the 10 Year Plan
coming soon, and the national cancer strategy due this autumn.
So we have a real chance here to deliver significant improvements for people living with cancer. So I have a list
of questions as is customary, and I'm incorporating those of my
honourable friend's. I think we're all friends here even if we are sitting on opposite sides. The number one, with the Minister commit
to exploring ways of ensuring that additional NHS funding is used to make abiraterone available to all men who need it in England and
Northern Ireland as my honourable friend from opposite points out? And
two, was you point out the introduction of a national screening program for prostate cancer as we
have other comparable cancers in UK? Furthermore, given the complexity,
it sounds like a right old bureaucratic nightmare, the complicity of NHS England's
decision-making process surrounding abiraterone's availability, as the functions of NHS England are
transferred back into the Department of Health and social care, will my
honourable friend take steps to ensure all decisions about access to medicine and including abiraterone
medicine and including abiraterone
Number four, will she commit to publishing and Equality Impact
Assessment, given that disturbingly disproportionate effect this is
having on black men, more likely to develop prostate cancer, more likely
to be diagnosed late and less likely to receive the right treatment.
For
all of the men implicated right here, right now. This is the second
time you have been in the chair and I have been talking about health inequalities since Friday, when we
had assisted dying. So, look, my
last one... Teymoor, in light of the lengthy approval process that currently operates, will my
honourable friend assess the adequacy of the funding formula
models, it just seems a bit naughty.
We should look at whether novel pharmaceutical treatment could be produced cost effectively,
especially when my honourable friend says that they come off paid.
I am
arguing for signification indicated where drugs are already prescribed
for a limited use and there is a case for expanding their application, we are halfway there, we need to go a bit further.
Prostate cancer estimates 672 men die prematurely each year because we
do not have access to the medicine. Each week, this continues, 13 men in England will die that could have
been treated. Labour is the party of the NHS, a Labour government
introduced the U.K.'s first dedicated cancer strategy, let go
for this, a win-win for all, and end the postcode lottery, widen access
for all of those who need it, not just those who can afford it.
19:47
Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I called the Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I thank my honourable friend for securing this debate. And to
for securing this debate. And to those who have spoken this evening. As she said, more than 50,000 men
As she said, more than 50,000 men are diagnosed every year and one in eight will be diagnosed in their
eight will be diagnosed in their lifetime. As well as commending helpful raising it, I know it is very personal for her, she has
very personal for her, she has
articulated.
I am sure her late father is watching her carefully. She is right to support her constituent, Peter, by raising this issue. Because of that level that
issue. Because of that level that affects so many men, she is right to highlight the issues with particularly black and minority
particularly black and minority ethnic men coming forward, something we have campaigned strongly for. It
we have campaigned strongly for. It is important that timely diagnosis and access to treatment is of the
utmost importance. To support faster diagnosis, the NHS England have
redesigned pathways to maximise
capacity.
We are aware of the early stage trials into the use of AI of
detection and we look forward to these trials reporting so the evidence can be considered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It has been well noted tonight, the effect of prostate cancer,
the effect of prostate cancer, around 12,000 men die with over 300 per year in Northern Ireland. Which
per year in Northern Ireland. Which agree that Northern Ireland should be included and which agree to speak with the Health Minister in Northern
Ireland regarding this issue? Would she also agreed that this needs to
she also agreed that this needs to sit alongside a UK wide prostate cancer screening, particularly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
targeting people who have a history... His family has a history of prostate cancer. We talk regularly with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, I am
colleagues in Northern Ireland, I am happy to do so, it is devolved, it is a matter for them, we do respect the devolution settlement, but I am
the devolution settlement, but I am happy to keep talking with them. Our plan, published in January 2021,
built on the investment made with a ambitious vision. This will include
more straight to test pathways, increasing Community Diagnostic Centres and better use of
technology.
With nearly 170 Community Diagnostic Centres up and running, they can take on more of
the growing demand within elective and cancer care, we will also deliver additional capacity in 25/26
by expanding existing centres and
building up to five new ones. We will address the challenges in diagnostic waiting times, providing
CT, MRI and other tests to reduce the weight. Members know that we
have heard this evening about NICE,
an independent body responsible for assessing whether recommendations can be recommended for routine use.
Based on assessment of clinical effectiveness. The NHS is legally
required to fund the recommended medicines, including consistency of access wherever they live in
England. It is also able to recommend cancer medicines to be used to support patient access
whilst real-world evidence is generated to address clinical uncertainty. Through the drug fund,
NHS patients also benefit from access to cancer medicines from the
point of positive draft NICE guidance, accelerating access to cost-effective medicines by up to
three months.
Through this process, many thousands of patients,
including patients for prostate cancer, have been able to benefit from new treatments. The drug that
is the subject of this debate is
licensed, as said, and recommended, for use in the treatment of certain types of prostate cancer and is
routinely available to NHS patients in England in line with the recommendations. NHS England has
recently put in place an interim commission that makes it available
for men with high risk, a hormone sensitive prostate cancer, pending the outcome of the update of the
negative guidance.
I am pleased this approach was agreed between NICE and NHS England last year to ensure
uninterrupted access to the drug for men leading the stampede trial. My
honourable friend raised concerns with access to this drug for those men with non-metastatic prostate
cancer, it is important to note that it is not licensed by the NHRA for
use in this indication and it is therefore off label. NICE does not evaluate Edison's in off label uses
and the drug is often patented and available generically, there is no single manufacturer who could
sponsor an NRH8.
It is, therefore, for NHS organisations to take decisions on funding based on the
available evidence. NHS England considered it for the treatment of
nonmetastatic prostate cancer through the clinical prioritisation process. Through this process, NHS
England concluded that evidence supporting the routing commissioning of the drug in this indication.
There are approximately 7,000 men per year that could be eligible for
this drug and it is estimated that would cost £20 million per year to fund. In considering this, there
will be some potential, as she has
said, whilst there might be some potential cost savings in the pathway, these are unlikely to
materialise around five years and will not impact the upfront cost of
the £20 million per year for the additional monitoring and drug cost, I have not heard the figures she outlined earlier but I will get back
to her on this question she asked to make sure it will be helpful to know
where they are from.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify the necessary funding to support the
commissioning for this purpose or any other treatments within the prioritisation round. I know that is
disappointing to those affected and I want to acknowledge it is a really difficult situation and an unusual
situation, however, I want to assure
the deep -- honourable lady that this does not mean there are nutriment options, the guideline on
prostate cancer recommends the treatment with surgery and radiotherapy, I want to assure
honourable members that NHS England is keeping its permission back position under review and would
reconsider funding if the funding position changes.
NHS England have
also met with prostate Cancer UK earlier this month to share the
financial model of the expected cost and NHS England are reviewing this
and I would encourage them to continue the discussions. So, in closing, I recognise how hard it is when patients want access to
effective treatments. The also
recognise the distress and worry it causes. Not only for the patients but their families and friends. The government is committed to ensuring
that we provide access to the most effective medicines but it has to be
in a way that is sustainable and affordable.
And it is right that NHS England continues to engage with
prostate Cancer UK and I know numbers, the honourable others, will keep an eye on this and other
issues. The National Council plan will improve every aspect of cancer
care to better the experience. Our goal is to reduce the number of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lives lost over the next 10 years and I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond. The question is that this House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Ayes have it.
20:01
Private business
-
Copy Link
20:01
Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
20:02
Private business
-
Copy Link
House House of House of Commons House of Commons - House of Commons - 17 House of Commons - 17 June House of Commons - 17 June 2025.
20:25
Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
20:28
Private business
-
Copy Link
20:28
Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
20:31
Private business
-
Copy Link
20:31
Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
20:31
Private business
-
Copy Link
This debate has concluded