Decriminalising Abortion

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I am not aware that following the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland there has been a strong current to re-criminalise it, which might be expected had a situation such as the right hon. Gentleman referred to actually occurred. It is not my understanding that that has happened.

For each of the two offences I described, sentences of up to life imprisonment apply. A person is guilty of the offence of child destruction when the pregnancy is of at least 28 weeks and they commit a wilful act to cause the child’s death; it is a defence if the act was done to preserve the mother’s life. The offence of procuring miscarriage can be committed at any stage of gestation when a person uses a poison or instrument to induce miscarriage. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, there are defences, variously, under the Abortion Act when two registered medical practitioners authorise abortion in an approved clinic in broadly four situations. The first is when there is a risk of injury to the mother’s physical or mental health up to 24 weeks—that was the exception expanded during covid, so that women could access pills for medical abortions at home, following a consultation, for pregnancy of up to 10 weeks.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. and learned Member made a point about Northern Ireland. It is important to note that Northern Ireland does not have at-home abortions—pills by post—and much of the discussion about decriminalisation of abortion in England, or here in the mainland, is focused on at-home abortions. Northern Ireland has a very different context, which should not be used in the same train of thought.

[Tony Vaughan]

I note the hon. Member’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which is noted.

[Carla Lockhart]

In reference to other countries, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no evidence that decriminalisation will increase abortions. What is his response to the example of New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalised in March 2020, and in that year there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions, between 20 weeks gestation and birth, compared with 2019?

[Tony Vaughan]

I am not aware of that statistic. It may be that I can look into it and say more about it in closing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I come to Westminster Hall and find myself the first person to be called after the Member in charge, in this case of the petition. I am pleased to be able to comment on where we are on the petition. In this world, I try to be respectful to everyone—that is the nature of who I am and what I do. I probably have a very different opinion from the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who spoke on behalf of the petition, and other Members who will speak afterwards.

It is one of the quirks of this place and our procedures that we find ourselves debating this petition today, when in all likelihood we will have a similar debate in the next few weeks on new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the main Chamber. Our debate today is almost a rehearsal for what will come in a few weeks’ time. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Vickers, that I will not digress too much into discussion of the specifics of the new clauses, but it is safe to say that they are deeply concerning to me and many thousands of my constituents. I referred to where we are and our position in Northern Ireland. My constituents have made me aware of their position, so in speaking today I will represent that and the position of many other constituents across Northern Ireland.

I should say at the outset that I find it tragically ironic that proposals have been made to further liberalise a law here in part on the premise that the law is more liberal, more permissive, and supposedly more progressive in Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made today. Of course, the change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was only brought about as a result of overreach—I use that word on purpose—by Westminster, undermining the constitutional value of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives, who should have been allowed to make decisions on this matter. On a personal level and on behalf of my constituents, it is important to place that on record in this Westminster Hall debate.

Hon. Members know my position on abortion; it is a matter of public record. In coming up to 15 years here, there has not been a question or a debate on this subject that I have not participated in or had a question on in the Chamber. That is for the record. I will not go into much detail, save to say that in my view every abortion is a tragedy for both the woman and the unborn child whose life is cut short. I hope that my view will be respected in this debate, as I respect those who hold a very different view from my own. This is a very sensitive subject and deserves to be considered in that light, but it is also important that we consider this debate in the round.

There is no right to abortion in international law. It is worth noting at the outset that, contrary to what seems to be a popular belief both in the media and among some hon. Members, even academics who take an opposing view to mine on abortion acknowledge that there is no right to abortion directly enshrined in any key international human rights instrument. That is their opinion. I put that on the record as well, because it is important to discuss these matters in full. Although this is often cited as the impetus and imperative for change in the UK, the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are not binding on the United Kingdom. We can and should determine our own laws on this subject. It is neither required nor determined that we should go down the path of further liberalisation.

Abortion is not simply medical treatment. This is not a simple matter—it certainly is not for me and my constituents and those of us who represent this point of view.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. In contrast, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, states that the child

“needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Does he agree with me that in every case both lives matter?

[Jim Shannon]

That is exactly the point. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Her mind is the same as my mind and that of the people we represent across the Province and in our constituencies.

Abortion is not simply a medical treatment. It is not a simple matter. One of the underlying rationales behind the push for decriminalisation of abortion is worth addressing. Abortion is not a mere medical treatment that should be treated akin to other matters of healthcare. However uncomfortable this may be to confront, my view and the biological reality is that there is more than one life involved in any abortion. It is essential that that is reflected in the law and in the penalties that result from breaking that law. Of course, laws send messages and shape culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer]

I absolutely agree; that is a fear that I share.

Nicola went to hospital to seek care, but was instead passed to the police. She was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion, a nightmare that lasted four and half years before she was acquitted unanimously by a jury. These incidents reflect a system that increasingly criminalises women for seeking healthcare, and we cannot let it continue.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Lady referenced Nicola Packer. Would she not say that the solution in that case is not decriminalisation, but to reinstate the gestational age checks for pills by post?

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I do not agree.

To overcome the fear and anxiety that many women face when seeking medical support, we must instead build a society rooted in compassion and centred on safe, supportive healthcare, where such healthcare is treated as part of women’s services, and not treated with suspicion or stigma.

One route to decriminalising abortion is through new clause 1, which has been tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland and countries such as France, Ireland, Canada and Australia, where women are not criminalised for abortion. The new clause is backed by End Violence Against Women, Refuge, Rape Crisis England & Wales, and many others. It would not change time limits or legal safeguards, but would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women.

As 88% of abortions in England and Wales occur before 10 weeks, the idea that decriminalisation would lead to many more late-term abortions is simply not supported by evidence. At a time when reproductive rights are under threat globally, we must act. Decriminalising abortion is a necessary step towards equality, compassion and justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of people in Northern Ireland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, in the six years since that law was passed there has been no call to reverse it. I believe that human rights are universal, which is why I thought it was right for us in the United Kingdom Parliament to act for all those women in Northern Ireland whose rights were being denied by the previous status quo. There has been resistance, and we can learn from it; that is why we tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill.

I want to be very clear: anybody who claims that they are supporting decriminalisation by supporting new clause 1 is not telling us what decriminalisation really looks like. Decriminalisation must involve repeal, and that is why new clause 20 would repeal the legislation around abortion. That matters because, under the existing framework here, the police have already issued guidance that talks about prosecuting women. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that we do not want to see prosecutions. Many of us have been concerned for some years about the increase in investigations and prosecutions of women for abortion. We have not been able to get to the bottom of why there has been such a surge or why the police felt the need to produce that guidance.

New clause 1 would not stop subsequent guidance targeting the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions, and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process. If we are to finally put to bed the notion that abortion is treated in the same way in this country as endangering the safety of railway workers or the possession of explosives—which it is under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—we must remove these offences from legislation. New clause 20 would do that: it explicitly says that there can be no investigation or prosecution under those offences. Therefore, it offers protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions. That is why we took the approach that we did in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, there was no abortion service at all, but we wanted to fight for what an abortion service should be.

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice absolutely want to stop the investigations and prosecutions. Opposition Members have set out many of the arguments that are made to attack abortion access in this country, and that is where the human rights legislation came in. It is not true that when we passed the Northern Ireland legislation in 2019, there was immediately access to abortion. We had to fight tooth and nail against those who used their positions to thwart that legislation. The reason we were able to do that was that we had written into law a human rights lock, which meant that whenever people in the civil service, the police or the healthcare service did not approve of abortion and sought to resist the legislation, the Secretary of State had to stand up for the right of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. I sat with the Secretaries of State at that point, who were not themselves particularly supportive of abortion access, as they admitted to me that they had to push through that legislation and ensure that provision.

I have read the judgments from the cases where the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission intervened directly and used the powers that we wrote into law to defend access to abortion. Why does that matter? It matters because we know that abortion is already under attack in this country. I know that many are concerned about the Americanisation of our debate here—I want to come on to that—but we have already seen millions of pounds being spent on anti-abortion activism in this country. We do not need to import those people from America; we already have people like Lord Michael Hintze and Lord Michael Farmer, who are more than happy to fund anti-abortion activism.

I pay tribute to the work of Dr Pam Lowe in identifying and tracking that. We can see from that work that there has been better co-ordination of anti-abortion campaigning, against decriminalisation, as well as the arguments made about the time limit and telemedicine—and, ultimately, in favour of the argument that we should be demanding to know why women wish to have an abortion. For no other healthcare provision do we demand that women explain and justify themselves before we provide it. Whether it is the March for Life, the activities on our campuses or indeed the lobbying of MPs, anybody who was complacent about access to abortion in this country before we saw the Trump playbook being brought into British politics needs to look more closely at what has been happening.

When we legislate on abortion, we do not just need to properly decriminalise; we need to properly protect. That is why we tabled new clause 20, which has cross-party support. The anti-abortion movement never asks for abolition; it asks for more safeguards. It asks for more visits to doctors to delay the process of accessing an abortion. It makes a claim about medical technology. Of course, it is amazing when doctors are able to do wonderful things to save the lives of children born prematurely, but this is apples and pears. The people who have to make that horrible choice to have a late-term abortion are not doing so with the best of news in their hearts, but with hearts that are broken, because they have been told that their child will not live past birth. Who are we as a society, here in England and Wales, to compel those women to keep carrying a child to term that they know will die in a way that we do not do in Northern Ireland?

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the mask is slipping today. This is an attack on those who seek to lobby for the protection of life in this United Kingdom, and I for one want to stand up for those people in this debate. That is such an insult towards the many groups and organisations who value life, and who value both lives in every pregnancy. It is outrageous that those people have been demonised.

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels like that. I hope she heard my words to her colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have always—it is on the record—defended the right of people who disagree with abortion to make their argument. I have always—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have always defended the right of people to disagree. What I do not do is defend the right of people who disagree to harass.

Let me talk about another example of where abortion access is under threat. We fought tooth and nail in the previous Parliament to put safe access zones to abortion clinics in place. We absolutely uphold people’s religious liberties, but no one has a religious right to pray anywhere they like that trumps the human right of privacy that a woman has when she has made the choice to have an abortion to go to a clinic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) set out the consequences of that.

Nothing in new clause 1 would protect buffer zones. New clause 20 would explicitly protect buffer zones, because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has intervened to protect buffer zones as part of human rights legislation. Some may argue, “Don’t worry: because she made that ruling and fought that case for us in Northern Ireland, we can apply it to England and Wales.” New clause 20 would put that beyond doubt. It is therefore not some untried and untested mechanism for defending abortion; it is about recognising that, if we want to protect abortion access, we have to repeal the relevant legislation and then say what happens next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. My views differ from many who have spoken, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who outlined our case extremely well. For me, this is a debate on life. I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy. The most basic human right is the right to life. I speak today with deep conviction on this issue, and a desire to restore life-affirming laws to this entire United Kingdom—laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is important to outline that since the 1967 Act was brought into force in the United Kingdom, 10 million abortions have taken place. One baby is lost to abortion every two and a half minutes; that is 26 lives every hour—and this debate will last three hours. That is stark. I come at this issue from the perspective of life and the protection of life. In every pregnancy, both lives matter.

There are times in politics when one does not enjoy being right. Back in 2021, I wrote in The House magazine of my fears that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions was leading to an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Plenty of others expressed similar fears. Sadly, those fears have all proven to be true. A study based on freedom of information requests to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill, provided by the NHS, at home in 2020 needed hospital treatment for side effects—equivalent to more than one in 17 women, or 20 women per day. Late last year, Stuart Worby was convicted of using abortion pills obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme to induce an abortion of a woman against her knowledge or will.

All those cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not lobbied, in the face of warnings about precisely those kinds of incidents occurring, for the removal of in-person appointments where health risks could be assessed and the woman’s identity and gestational age accurately verified. It is that last point about ensuring that a woman’s gestational age is accurately verified that has indirectly led to the debate we are having today.

The abortion lobby has acknowledged—I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for abortion provider Marie Stopes—that until recently, “only three women”

had

“ever been on trial over the past 160 years”

for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit still a very small number in the light of the more than a quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom—a national tragedy.

Why has there been a small rise in prosecutions? It is surely not because the CPS or police have suddenly decided to handle the issue in a more draconian way; rather, the pills-by-post scheme has enabled women, either dishonestly or because they have miscalculated their gestational age, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women—they are, of course, never safe for the baby—and even beyond the 24-week upper time limit for abortions in this country. Tragically, that has led to viable babies’ lives being ended. The responsibility for that surely lies with those who lobbied for the pills-by-post scheme.

What is the solution? Well, it cannot be to make matters worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be highly irresponsible, creating conditions where a woman could perform her own abortion, unsupervised, without any legal deterrent, away from a clinical setting, at a stage in pregnancy when doing so would carry great risks and when her baby would be viable. We would be de facto introducing abortion up to birth and reintroducing dangerous backstreet abortions. That is not pro-women, and it renders the time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check.

There is a clear alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations. Polling published by The Telegraph last year found that more than half of the public agreed that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby between the current 24-week legal time limit and birth; only 16% disagreed. The public does not support decriminalisation. Only 1% support abortion up to birth, which such proposals would introduce by the removal of offences prohibiting women from performing their own abortion at any stage. Polling has found that 71% of women support a return to in-person appointments, with only 9% in favour of continuing with the scheme.

Decriminalisation is a convenient way to cover up the disastrous consequences of the pills-by-post scheme. I greatly fear that, just as my earlier warnings about the scheme have sadly proven true, if decriminalisation were introduced my warnings today would also come true and more women would take abortion pills away from a clinical context late in pregnancy, endangering their lives and leading to the tragic deaths of viable unborn babies. Permitting that would be profoundly irresponsible. Ideology would be trumping women’s safety.

One final comment: I have rarely witnessed anything as cynical and disingenuous as the argument, put forward by its supporters, that decriminalisation would allow women in England and Wales to have the same so-called rights as women in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019 to impose abortion on Northern Ireland without democratic consent, she seemed to have no problem at all with the law in England and Wales, bemoaning how women in Northern Ireland were being discriminated against because they did not have access to the same law. She then, however, helped to introduce an even more extreme law for Northern Ireland than what we have here in England and Wales, and now cynically uses that more extreme law to argue that it is women in England and Wales who are now being discriminated against, despite the fact they can access abortions up to almost six months of pregnancy, essentially on demand. In my mind, that is politics of the lowest kind.

What is not often recognised is that introducing decriminalisation here would not bring abortion practice in England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, because of this key difference: there is no pills-by-post scheme in Northern Ireland. It is the combination of the pills-by-post scheme, whereby women can obtain abortion pills without reliable checks for gestational age, health risks or coercion, while also removing any deterrent against women performing their own abortions right up to birth, that would make decriminalisation so dangerous and so irresponsible for the Government. I hope my warnings will not go unheeded this time.