Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

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

The new clause would establish a new Department for immigration and border security, transferring the immigration, asylum and border security functions of the Home Secretary to that office. The Home Office is a large organisation, and its functions are various: immigration and borders, passports and security, counter-terrorism and homeland security, policing and crime, drugs and alcohol policy, and public protection. Serious questions must be asked about the capacity of any single Department to handle all those responsibilities.

Those concerns manifest when Department inefficiencies become clear. The average wait time for an asylum decision has come down substantially since Labour took office, but over a quarter of cases still take more than a year to process.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Of course, we all want an efficient, fair, secure and sustainable asylum system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging our really good success recently, but how would setting up a new Department help us to speed up those processes and get the asylum system back under control?

[Mr Kohler]

As I have said, we believe that the Home Office is too large and cannot focus on all things for which it is responsible. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the disaster of asylum hotels. Why was that a disaster? Because the Home Office was not concentrating on that particular issue. It signed contracts that made millions for businessmen but did not help asylum seekers at all.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. We have cut asylum hotel use by 50% since we have been in charge, so we are already having success with the Home Office as it is.

[Mr Kohler]

But that mistake was made because the attention of the Home Office was diverted to other issues at the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member looks at me quizzically, but a mistake was made. Yes, the Government have started to solve that mistake, but asylum hotel numbers went up by 8% last year, so the idea that they have just gone down and down is not accurate.

The new clause would create a new Government Department that could put its entire focus on effective immigration policy. It would produce an annual immigration plan—subject to scrutiny and a vote in Parliament—setting out how the Government will deliver a fair, controlled and effective system. It would also work across Government to develop long-term workforce plans for public services and critical national infrastructure, ensuring that migration policy is designed in tandem with investment, domestic skills and training, to strengthen our services. This plan would ensure that British people and services finally get a system built to work for them—a system based on evidence that works across Government and different sectors to deliver better public services and a growing economy.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member not agree that we are currently a proud member of the European Court of Human Rights and, with that membership, we have still managed to deport 12,000 foreign national offenders to other countries that are signed up to it? It is absolutely no barrier and, in fact, it helps us to fulfil our obligations. We are a proud nation of sanctuary in Wales and we are also going to have safe and legal routes for immigrants. Surely he agrees that being part of the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent us from deporting people.

[Matt Vickers]

If you believe that we are deporting everyone we should be deporting, and if you do not believe that the European convention on human rights has got in the way of us removing people, you start from a very different place from me. People I represent are very concerned about our immigration system. They are very concerned that the laws we are making in this place are not acting to control that immigration system. I think we start from very different perspectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.

[Catherine Fookes]

I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law.

I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful.

The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born.

As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”.

The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.

That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes.

This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended.

That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments.

The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention.

The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

That absolutely applies to refugees.

Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.

[Catherine Fookes]

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from in relation to local authorities, but does she agree that clauses 23 and 24 exclude certain groups of people, including under-18s and those whom the payments would make destitute?

[Siân Berry]

One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities.

The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that

“around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”.

She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later.

I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed.

Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very moving and affecting tribute to Ann Widdecombe. On Widders whisky, as a teetotal Muslim, I would never be able to partake of such a drink, but if there were a non-alcoholic version available I would happily imbibe.

We will ensure that, as and when it is possible to share more information about the circumstances of the murder and the motivation, that is done in the appropriate way. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that at no point has anything been taken off the table in terms of the investigation. It is a live investigation and it is not unusual that in a fast-paced investigation, more information comes to light that changes the nature or the character of what the police are dealing with. I am reassured that Devon and Cornwall police have been working closely with Counter Terrorism Policing, and as soon as the additional information was made available, Counter Terrorism Policing took over, as is appropriate and the right thing to do.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I share the sentiments that have already been expressed and send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. Of course, security is a huge issue to all of us in this Chamber, and I am sure that I was not the only one this weekend who went about my business in the constituency looking over my shoulder more than I normally would. It is terrible that this is the third Member of Parliament or ex-Member of Parliament to have been murdered—it should not be like this. While I thank Mr Speaker for everything he is doing, and I have already heard from my Operation Bridger contact this morning, who I was delighted to have heard from, about my security and if everything is okay, it does seem that security fobs and security in our houses are not enough. What more can the Home Secretary do to work with the Parliamentary Security Department and with Mr Speaker to ensure that our security is not undermined?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We would not, of course, ever comment on the specific nature of the arrangements made for the security of Members of Parliament, either here on the estate or in their homes or constituencies. However, let me assure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are taken. For local policing, as well as working with the Parliamentary Security Department, there is an offer for all Members of Parliament, and there are specific risk assessments when there is something of concern relating to a particular individual. Let me reassure her that I think those arrangements are comprehensive; however, we should always ask ourselves whether they are enough and whether they are responding to the changing nature of threats or the spike in threat activity that we sometimes see. I assure her that I will of course be working closely with the Parliamentary Security Department and policing more broadly to ensure that these arrangements are as tight, robust and comprehensive as they need to be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Under the previous Government, we saw 2.5 million people arrive in just four years—that is one in 30 people in the country at this time. This Government have brought migration down by 82% since its peak and by 41% in the past year.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. Surviving Economic Abuse estimates that around 750,000 women are trapped in a joint mortgage with an abusive partner or ex-partner, with the only way out often being to let their home be repossessed, as abusers refuse to contribute their share of repayments or prevent the sale of the property. I welcome the fact that the Government want to explore solutions, including what could be done through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but what steps will the Government take to stop joint mortgage abuse as part of their wider commitment to halving violence against women and girls?

[Natalie Fleet]

The VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy set out ambitious commitments to tackle financial abuse. The Government are determined to embed the prevention of violence against women and girls across all Departments. Our VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy are committed to exploring how we can make it harder for abusers to use joint financial products, including joint mortgages, as a tool of abuse, and how to better support victim survivors. Last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I hosted a roundtable with 16 banks and financial service organisations to underscore Government priorities, share best practice in the financial services sector, and agree how we can work together to deliver commitments in the VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy.

Crime and Policing Bill

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is, of course, right about the growing concern around chatbots and the need for safety by design. I will come on to Baroness Kidron’s amendment and the Government’s response to it later on in my speech.

Furthermore, the Government have brought forward Lords amendment 367 to take a power to extend the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 to cover unregulated AI chatbots. It means that general-purpose AI chatbots, such as Grok, which allow the creation and sharing of non-consensual intimate images, will have to proactively remove that illegal content from their services or face enforcement from Ofcom. Taken together, the measures will deliver an effective ban on nudification tools. Given that, we do not believe that a separate possession offence, as provided for in Lords amendment 505, would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are accessed online, rather than possessed.

Where a person is convicted of an intimate image offence, we agree that it is vital that those images are deleted from the perpetrator’s devices. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258 enables the courts to make an image deletion order following a conviction for an offence related to intimate image abuse. Breach of the order will be a criminal offence. The amendment also enables the courts to require the deletion of other intimate images of the same victim. This approach gives courts the required flexibility to consider the details of each case when applying their powers, while ensuring that the offenders are held accountable for compliance with the order.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I really welcome the Government’s amendment on image deletion orders, which will ensure that after a conviction, courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images and film. They will be able to give prison sentences, too; that is incredibly important. Does the Minister agree that this, coupled with the Government’s new requirements for tech firms to delete this horrifying content when it is found, is a crucial step forward in ensuring that non-consensual intimate imagery victims can finally move forward with their life?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her. This is the culmination of a lot of good work in the Lords and the Commons, from Members of all parties. MPs have pushed as hard as we can on this emerging technology, which is so dangerous and so high risk, and we have a Government who are committed to acting and doing the right thing. Everybody has worked really hard, together, to get us to a much stronger place. The power allowing courts to require the deletion of intimate images will also be available for the offence of breastfeeding voyeurism recording, and the new offence of sharing semen-defaced images.

Online platforms need to do more to ensure that non-consensual intimate images are removed quickly, as my hon. Friend said, and not after the 24-hour timeframe envisioned by Lords amendment 256. To that end, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257 strengthens platform and senior executive accountability by making it a criminal offence for a service to breach an enforcement decision by Ofcom on duties to deal with and remove reported non-consensual intimate images. That means that senior executives of the service could be criminally liable for the breach. As well as taking this enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will also bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Online Safety Act to amend schedule 8, so that Ofcom can require providers to be fully transparent about both the speed of intimate image removals, and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee has done and will continue to do in this space. It is very important that we have good analysis of what the problems are that we need to solve. She is absolutely right that the problems with AI chatbots are evident, significant and concerning, and that more work needs to be done in this space. If there is work that we can do sooner rather than later, I am sure that my colleagues in DSIT will do that, and I commit to working with them to do what we can as quickly as we can.

Finally, hon. Members will recall that on Report, the House decided to disapply the criminal law relating to abortion in respect of women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Their Lordships agreed amendment 361, which would provide for automatic pardons for women previously convicted or cautioned for an abortion offence in relation to their own pregnancies and for the deletion of certain details from court and police records.

I stress that the Government remain neutral on the substance of clause 191 and Lords amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable. Accordingly, we have tabled amendments (a) and (e) to Lords amendment 361 to ensure that the deletion of details from relevant official records can operate as intended.

[Catherine Fookes]

I support Lords amendment 361 because some women, even after being found not guilty, have investigations that show up on their Disclosure and Barring Service checks, which impacts their life and future careers. That is the reality for a young woman named Becca, whose case I raised in the House a year ago. She was investigated at age 19 after giving birth to her son at 28 weeks, and she says that removing the investigation from her records would help her to be able to move on and live a proper family life. Does the Minister agree that this change will help to bring justice for women like Becca?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenge that Becca has faced, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done in bringing that to the House. The Government are neutral on this part of the Bill, as is right and proper. What we seek to do with our amendments is ensure that it is legally workable. That is our role in this space.

I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

I have laid out the concerns, and the reasons for this brake. For example, 93% of those coming over from Afghanistan as students are claiming asylum. The Green party may well want open borders; that is not what we stand for. We stand for control and order, but, at the same time, compassion. That is exactly why we are looking at safe and legal routes, while working to control the borders.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

We are delivering the cross-Government freedom from violence and abuse strategy, published in December, which sets out concrete actions for halving VAWG in a decade by preventing violence and abuse, pursuing perpetrators, and supporting victims. As part of that, we have already launched our behaviour change campaign, rolled out domestic abuse protection orders, and embedded domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms under Raneem’s law.

[Catherine Fookes]

Survivors in Monmouthshire tell me that economic abuse not only featured in their relationships, but stopped them rebuilding their lives long after they left. For some, the separation compromised their business. Others face continued control through child maintenance disputes. In what measurable ways will the VAWG strategy tackle economic abuse, and how will progress on that be reported to the House and elsewhere?

[Jess Phillips]

In the launch of the violence against women and girls strategy, I committed to annually updating the House on progress across a number of metrics—both the overarching metrics, and those that sit in different Government Departments, some of which are having to take responsibility for this issue for the first time. On working with the financial sector and regulators, the strategy talks about exploring how financial products, including joint mortgages, can be used as a tool of abuse. We will work with Departments, such as the Treasury, on exactly how we can monitor progress against all our aims, and I will report on that annually.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking through the visa and immigration system to support refugees from Ukraine.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion. More than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes, and Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor.

[Catherine Fookes]

Blwyddyn newydd dda, Mr Speaker.

Monmouthshire hosts more than 400 refugees from Ukraine. Most of the adults work locally, and some have started businesses; their children are settled in schools, and they contribute hugely to our community. However, Ukrainians in Abergavenny—a proud town of sanctuary—as well as in our towns of Chepstow and Caldicot say that their temporary status can create practical hurdles, such as in housing or university grant applications, because they may suddenly be uprooted. What is the Minister doing through the visa system to ensure that refugees from Ukraine have the necessary support and stability to thrive here in the UK in the long term?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important concern. Ukrainians in Monmouthshire and across the UK have full access to work, healthcare and education, and this Government acted swiftly to introduce a further extension of three and a half years to provide certainty. Ukrainian visa applications are processed swiftly, and e-visas can be easily accessed online to prove status. The Department for Education is working closely with higher education providers to ensure that they support Ukrainians in maintaining stable access to their studies. We have to be clear that this bespoke route offers temporary sanctuary; it balances the immediate needs of Ukrainians with the future needs of Ukraine as it rebuilds.

Crime and Policing Bill

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Lady to rethink what she is saying. There is nothing in new clause 1 that refers to abortion up until term. There would be no change to the abortion law—absolutely no change at all. We are not saying aborted to term, and it is extremely harmful for her to say that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I will make some progress.

Those who champion new clause 1 claim that it is needed to stop arrests, long investigations and the prosecution of women, but it is important to highlight that prosecutions under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act almost always relate to males inducing or coercing women into abortions. By decriminalising women, we would, by implication, also stop the opportunity to prosecute abusive or coercive males. To be prosecuted for aiding and abetting abortion, there needs 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 hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). She has rehearsed the arguments for that new clause excellently, but I will add that freedom of information requests have revealed that one in 17 women who took pills by post required hospital treatment—equivalent to more than 10,000 women between April 2020 and September 2021. Further investigation found that the number of ambulance service call-outs relating to abortion increased in London. They also increased in the south-west, where my constituency is, from 33 in 2019 to 74 in 2020—a 124% increase. That correlates directly with the removal of the need for a doctor’s appointment. At-home abortions were made permanent by just 27 votes in March 2022. Polling in June 2025 found that two thirds of women support a return to in-person appointments. I call on the House to support new clause 106.

[Catherine Fookes]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), which would remove women from the criminal law on abortion. Before my election last year, I served as the director of the Women’s Equality Network Wales, and this issue has long been close to my heart.

Until very recently, violent men ending their partners’ pregnancies made up the bulk of prosecutions under this 1861 law, but recently we have seen a big rise in women being targeted, many erroneously. This is not a law that exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even, Members may be surprised to know, the most anti-abortion states of America, but it is increasingly used against women in this country.

I want to take some time today to speak about one of these women. I will call her Becca, which I stress is not her real name. I know about what happened to Becca because her mum and dad were horrified at what happened, and they want us to hear about the injustice this law causes and to think of Becca when we cast our votes later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Fookes]

Due to time, I will not; I apologise.

When Becca gave birth, her baby was small and premature. She says the first hospital she stayed in was amazing, providing support for her, her partner and their baby. The second, however, made the decision—against professional guidance and rules on patient confidentiality —to report her and her partner to the police on suspicion of attempted abortion. One month after her child was born, Becca returned home to register the birth. The police swooped. Both she and her partner were arrested, her from her parents’ house and him from their 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 their house and told them they were not allowed to care for their baby without supervision, meaning that Becca could not breastfeed or hold her baby until her parents were approved as supervisors. During that visit, the social worker made a difficult situation even worse, telling the family their baby was deaf and blind as a result of the alleged abortion attempt. The baby was not. This casual cruelty by a social worker caused immense distress. Fortunately, Becca, her partner and her baby are now doing well. Social services agree that they are good parents and are no longer monitoring them.

I imagine that many Members across the Chamber today had never thought this kind of cruelty existed under abortion law in this country. I know that I had never considered it. The truth is that the current legal framework harms women and girls when they are at their most desperate, and the only people who can stop it are us here in Parliament today. While changing the law by voting through new clause 1 today cannot erase what happened to Becca and her family, it can stop it happening to any more women. I urge Members to keep women like Becca in the forefront of their minds when they vote. Think of Becca and vote for new clause 1.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My concerns about these amendments were such that I and others commissioned a leading King’s Counsel to draft a legal opinion regarding their effects. Let me inform Members of his conclusions. I begin with new clause 1. The KC confirms that, under new clause 1, 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 note that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) acknowledges in her explanatory statement to new clause 1 that her amendment applies “at any gestation”—that is, up to full term.

Let us be clear what this means. Under new clause 1, women would be able to perform their own abortions—for example, with abortion pills, which can now be obtained without an in-person gestational age check—up to birth, with no legal deterrent.

International Women�s Day

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the previous chief executive officer of the Women�s Equality Network Wales, I have a long history of campaigning for women�s equality. I was really proud of the work we did on the Diverse5050 campaign to get more women into public and political life, and to make care fair, recognising the huge army of unpaid women carers out there.

The theme of IWD this year is �Accelerate Action�, and my goodness me, don�t we still need more action? Yes, a whopping 47% of all Welsh MPs are now women, which is brilliant, but there are only two women leaders of Welsh local authorities, one of whom, I am proud to say, is Mary Ann Brocklesby, our very own leader in Monmouthshire.

One of the most difficult issues that women face today is healthcare inequality, and my inbox is full of cases. For many years, women�s health has been underfunded and people have not wanted to talk about periods or the menopause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has done a huge amount in that area. Thanks to her, this place has signed up to the menopause mandate, and it is thanks to her that I feel able to share today my own story, as she has given me the courage to do so.

My journey with the menopause was difficult. For me, it happened overnight. I had increasingly heavy and painful periods that stopped me going to work some days because of the heavy flow; I could not be more than one minute away from the loo. Eventually, the bleeding was so bad and unstoppable that I ended up in A&E, thinking I had a haemorrhage. It was fibroids, with one as big as an orange. Later, I finally got the hysterectomy I needed and the story ends happily�here I am�but with the hysterectomy came an immediate, overnight menopause. I stupidly thought I could get through it without the help of drugs, and I refused the patches offered to me in the hospital. Despite being the CEO of a Women�s Equality Network charity, I had not done my research. I am grateful to my incredible friends and the NHS for helping me to understand what was going on.

I am proud of our Government�s bold and important commitment to halve violence against women in a decade, but connected to that is an issue that fills my inbox: the inefficiency of the Child Maintenance Service, which creates an impossible situation. To my mind, it is unforgiveable that after a woman has made the difficult decision to leave her partner, she can continue to be abused by her husband financially as the CMS fails to prevent that.

I would like to take a moment to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has inspired me over the years and done so much on violence against women. Finally, I highlight the talented, inspiring and wonderful women of Monmouthshire who came to my International Women�s Day event in Chepstow on Saturday. It was a pleasure to be joined by so many inspiring women, and we raised �500 for Cyfannol Women�s Aid.