Commons Chamber

Tuesday 17th June 2025

(began 1 month, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Health and Social Care
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tuesday, June 24. We now come to questions for the Secretary of State
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
None Portrait Q11. Whether his Department has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the ban on the use of sunbeds by under 18s. (904632)
-

Number 11, Mr Speaker.
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
None Portrait Q12. What steps he is taking to reduce waiting times for biopsy results. (904633)
-

Let's move on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number 12. Thank you, Mr Speaker. More
12:12
Karin Smyth Portrait Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
-


**** 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
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
None Portrait Q14. What steps he is taking to shift care from hospitals into the community. (904635)
-

14 please.
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
None Portrait Topical questions: Health and Social Care
-

Topicals.
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
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
13:08
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Kirith Entwistle MP (Bolton North East, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
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
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
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 Portrait Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)
-
-
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
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
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 Portrait Jack Abbott MP (Ipswich, Labour )
-
-
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
David Mundell Portrait Rt Hon David Mundell MP (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
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
16:17
None Portrait Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 30, amdt. 175
-

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
16:45
None Portrait Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Report, Page 133, amdt. 160
-



**** 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 Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
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
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
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
Stella Creasy Portrait Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )
-
-
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 Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)
-
-
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
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Maya Ellis MP (Ribble Valley, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
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 Portrait Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
-
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
18:21
18:21
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Julia Lopez MP (Hornchurch and Upminster, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
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
19:17
19:33
None Portrait Point of Order
-

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
Rupa Huq Portrait Dr Rupa Huq MP (Ealing Central and Acton, Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Karin Smyth MP (Bristol South, Labour)
-
-
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
None Portrait Private business
-

20:01
20:02
20:25
20:28
None Portrait Private business
-

20:28
20:31
None Portrait Private business
-

20:31
20:31
None Portrait Private business
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page