Crime and Policing Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Currently, it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion between 24 weeks and term if the baby is healthy. If there is a problem, she has to have it done by doctors in hospital. Under the proposed new rules, we will have is a situation where a woman can legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to do so— [Interruption.] Yes, at any gestation. That is a completely legitimate argument. It is not one that I support or agree with, but it is a legitimate argument that people can make. If that is the case, they should have the courage of their convictions and make it.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

If criminal law does not work as a deterrent, why did late-term abortions increase in the State of Victoria and in New Zealand after decriminalisation? If we look at New Zealand in 2020, there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions between 20 weeks’ gestation and birth compared with 2019. Therefore, criminal law does act as a deterrent, and when it is removed we see an increase. We need to learn from different jurisdictions in that regard.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we have seen an increase in incidences of people taking abortion pills late. Previously it was very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the pills—it was certainly impossible to obtain them through NHS clinics—but now it is possible, because people can use a telemedicine clinic. They say that they are seven weeks pregnant and ask for pills, and we have seen examples where people have asked for the pills much further on in their pregnancy—into the 30 weeks—obtained the medicine and made themselves very unwell in doing so.

Turning to coercion, when a doctor sees a patient, they take at face value everything the patient tells them. When a lady uses telemedicine to have an abortion, it is not possible for a doctor or clinician to know whether somebody else is in the room with them, or sat the other side of the camera forcing them to say what they are saying. It is not possible for the doctor to know whether the lady is pregnant or not or whether the person asking for the medicine will be the person who takes it. That is very unsafe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I will tell him afterwards why I cannot, but I promise that it is not out of a lack of respect for his position.

Some say that Northern Ireland is different, but why would we think that women in Northern Ireland are different from women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? We are seeking not to remove our regulations, but to apply the same test to them. We simply want the Secretary of State to ask whether they are human-rights compliant. Those who celebrated bringing abortion to Northern Ireland, and who continue to promote it, did not just celebrate the provision of a service; they celebrated the liberation of women from this inequality, which we risk perpetuating for our constituents.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions.

New clause 20 is primarily about whether we think that abortion is a human right, and how we apply that principle to our laws here. It is also about the very present and real threat to access in our communities. Members will have seen outside this place the modern anti-abortion movement that we now have in the UK, and will have received the scaremongering emails. Of course those in that movement are reacting more strongly than ever to the idea of women having this human right protected in law, because their opposition is not about children. If it was, they would not shout at mine when they see them in the street. It is about controlling women. They do not openly advocate for an end to abortion access, but they make lurid claims, including the claim that there would be abortion at birth, so let me put that one to bed. Because new clause 20 retains the 1967 framework, it retains not just the time limit—crucially, it is different from new clause 1 in that regard—but all the provisions in the 1967 Act relating to everyone involved in an abortion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I rise in support of new clause 1 and new clause 20. I am someone who chooses the spend the majority of my time in this place focusing on women, who make up 51% of the population —on mothers, parents, women’s health and maternity—and I would like specifically to address comments that have been made in the Chamber today which pit the life of a foetus against that of a mother. Despite the fact that 40% of MPs are now women, and that every single one of us represents a constituency that will be 50% women, I rarely hear women’s issues being discussed here. On every issue in this House there is an angle that affects women differently, and that especially affects those caring for children differently, yet we do not speak about it.

When people speak against abortion in any form, I am stupefied by the bubble from within which they speak. Will 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. Will they speak out about the fact that more than 1.6 million women are kept out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities, which are seven times those of men? I doubt it. Will they speak out about children in temporary accommodation, the extortionate cost of childcare, medical negligence and the decimation of Sure Start? I doubt it.

Until hon. Members have done their time making this world one thousand times better for mothers and parents, as it needs to be, I suggest that they reflect on the audacity of making a judgment in isolation today that cries, “Life.” Every decision we make in this place comes 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 life. Hers is the life that hon. Members choose to vote against if they vote against these amendments; hers is the life hon. Members would be choosing to discard.

As others have said, in reality, the amendments before us today 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 I trust any state or judicial system that has yet to prove it can properly support the rights of women. That is why I will be voting for this and any amendments that further the rights of women over their own bodies.

[Carla Lockhart]

I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy—both the mum’s life and the child’s life. Abortion is often framed as a choice between the rights of the mother and of the child. I reject that framing, but today we are considering two amendments, new clause 1 and new clause 20, that would be bad for both women and unborn children; and one amendment, new clause 106, that would protect both women and unborn babies who are old enough to survive outside the womb.

In the last Parliament, I, along with a number of colleagues, warned that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Sadly, those warnings have become reality. A study based on a freedom of information request to 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; that is the equivalent of more than one in 17 women or 20 per day.

Last December, Stuart Worby was jailed after using abortion pills, obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme, to induce an abortion in 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 gestational age could be accurately verified, and any health risks assessed.

The issue of inaccurate gestational age has led indirectly to the amendments before us today. Abortion providers have themselves conceded, and I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for Marie Stopes, that, until recently,

“only three women have ever been on trial over the past 160 years”

for illegal 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 small rise in prosecutions has been caused by the pills-by-post scheme, which has enabled women, either because they miscalculate their own gestational age or through dishonesty, 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.

What is the answer? I suggest it cannot be to make things worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be bad for women and unborn lives, removing the legal deterrent against dangerous late-term, unsupervised abortions that would put women at risk as well as babies, even long after they are 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 gestational age check.

The alternative solution is to end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultation. That is why I support new clause 106, and the public support it too. New polling has found that just 4% of women support the current pills-by-post arrangement and two thirds want a return to in-person appointments. Decriminalisation may allow the problems with the pills-by-post scheme to be covered up, but it will not stop the problems happening. In fact, it will incentivise more dangerous late-term abortions of viable babies.

Let me close by turning to Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act to impose abortion on Northern Ireland, she argued that women in Northern Ireland faced discrimination because they did not have access to the same abortion provision as women in Great Britain. Let me very clear: Northern Ireland is very different. Northern Ireland does not have the pills-by-post scheme, so a direct correlation with GB cannot be made. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 106.