Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Martin Vickers Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Understandably, we have heard some passionate and courageous contributions, such as the one from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is no longer in her place. She made a remarkable contribution to the debate.

In this House, we discuss a whole range of issues week in, week out. Many of them are rather mundane, but nothing is more important than issues of life and death. To be honest, I would have thought that the mountain of briefings, reports and individual letters, particularly from a number of clinicians, would have been sufficient to persuade most people that this is an unsafe Bill, but I want to speak about the wider implications. Other Members have mentioned the impact on society. I claim no particular insight; indeed, I see through a glass darkly.

Some of us believe that life is God-given, and others do not, but I am sure we can all agree that it is uniquely precious and that we should do all we can to preserve it. I do not in any way question the motives of hon. Members or members of the public who take a different view. As we have heard today, many will have reached their conclusions having witnessed the slow and sometimes painful death of a loved one. I am of the firm view that if assisted dying is legalised, we will be poorer as a society. We will have crossed a line. We will have accepted that, to adapt the phrase I used earlier, life is not uniquely precious and, importantly, we will have changed the relationship between doctor and patient. That relationship is crucial, and it could be compromised if a patient was anything other than 100% certain that their doctor or clinician was striving to maintain life. When we are old, weak and seriously ill, we need compassion and support, not the nagging doubt that the treatment that we are receiving is not entirely—

[Rachel Taylor]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Vickers]

No, I cannot give way. There is no time for interventions.

As society has evolved and civilisation has advanced, care of the vulnerable, those who are sick and those who need comfort as they near the end of their lives has become a higher priority, and rightly so. In preparation for this debate, I re-read an article that the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, published in the Sunday Times in November 2024. We cannot produce legislation that meets every circumstance. Lord Sumption stated that

“the decision to allow doctors to help bring about the death of a human being crosses a major moral threshold.”

I think that is sufficient warning that we should be very confident that the Bill has the necessary safeguards, and I do not believe it does. As I say, we cannot produce legislation for every individual circumstance, so we are left with the alternative: to include sufficient safeguards. Even for those who support the Bill in principle, it does not have those safeguards. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life.

Both of my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the consultant after the tests on my father, when he said, “We must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long.” Although he did suffer, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call, and in that six months I saw him enjoying life and sharing time with his then four-year-old granddaughter. In his final weeks, he spent time in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. I saw then what comfort could be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988, and things have improved dramatically since that time.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Martin Vickers]

I will take one intervention.

[Dr Hudson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Quite rightly, when we enter this life, the NHS and the state support us through obstetrics, gynaecology, maternal health, neonatology and paediatrics. However, at the other end of our life, when we leave this world, the charitable sector picks things up, and the majority of support is delivered outside the NHS. Surely that cannot be right as a society. Surely we have to fix that and sort out palliative care before we go anywhere near this Bill.

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Let me go back to St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. My mother died in hospital on the day that she was due to be moved into that hospice—how I wish that only a day or two earlier she had been able to do that, and to receive the care that I know from subsequent visits the hospice has provided.

We all have to cope with the loss of loved ones, and such experience raises in the mind of any right-thinking person the question of how we minimise suffering. If someone has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to say, “Sorry, that is not possible.” However, I believe that moves to legislate for assisted dying would be yet another step that lessens the value that we as a society place on human life.

I suggest to the House that the expert opinions and personal stories we have all received must, even if Members favour assisted dying in principle, make us think seriously about whether this Bill is the right vehicle. In my view, it is not. Too many safeguards are lacking, and the Bill must be rejected. Life is precious, and we should recognise that.

Criminal Justice Reform

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken death by dangerous driving out of scope of the progression model, so anybody whose sentence was being reduced from two thirds to a half under the model and was in prison for death by dangerous driving is now not in scope. I will get full clarity on the release date for the case my hon. Friend raises.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The daughter of one of my constituents was the victim of a knife attack in her own home in 2014. Thankfully, the perpetrator was convicted. He is now charged with another offence—that of rape—and is appearing in court next month. One can imagine the concern of my constituent’s daughter when she received a letter from Victim Support to say that this individual was going to be released. I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the case. I appreciate that he might not have seen the letter, but could he give an assurance that he will look at the case and do all he can to ensure that this individual is not released?

[Alex Norris]

Again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that rape has been excluded from the progression model, but I will look at that case as a matter of urgency and come back to him. The important thing to say to all colleagues is that the victim-survivor should engage with their victim liaison officer, so that they can answer some of the questions. I will do anything I can to speed up that process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

That piece of legislation is going through the House, as it should. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the important right to protest and the protection enabling communities and groups to lead their lives with no trepidation or stifling, and I believe that the amendment strikes that balance.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Since the last session of Justice questions, the Government have delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026 to implement punishment that works to cut crime and make our streets safer. It will ensure that we have enough prison cells for the most serious criminals, incentivise good behaviour in prisons and introduce tough, credible community punishments to drive down reoffending. Our second annual statement on prison capacity shows the impact of our reform. For the first time in years, we no longer forecast a chronic shortage of prison places. That sits alongside the most ambitious prison building programme since the Victorians: we aim to build 14,000 new places by 2030, backed by £7 billion of investment.

[Martin Vickers]

Could I return the Secretary of State to the issue of jury trials? I have received an email from a constituent who is a practising barrister, who points to the issues, which have already been mentioned, of poor prisoner transport, the cap on sitting days and the condition of many courtrooms. Could the Secretary of State focus on delivering improvements in those areas, and abandon the proposals to limit jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman really should read Sir Brian Leveson’s report. We have to do all of it. Sir Brian will be publishing the second part of the report, which deals with the issues the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if we did only that, we would not see the backlog fall in his constituency. We have to invest in more sitting days, as we are and will continue to do, but we also need reform, which is why we are bringing forward those reforms on the thresholds.

Criminal Court Reform

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?

Right to Trial by Jury

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The constitutional right that British people have is the right to a fair trial. People are waiting years for their day in court and seeing some defendants whose trial could be heard gaming the system. I believe that the Justice Committee paper says that there were more than 4,000 cases last year alone in which magistrates had sufficient sentencing powers to address the case swiftly. People opted for a jury trial, in some cases deliberately, because they wanted to drag it out, put their victim through that, see witnesses pull out and perhaps get away with it all. That is simply not fair.

We have to guarantee jury trial, especially for the most serious cases—rape, murder and serious drug trafficking—but I am not prepared to ask a victim of rape who has been waiting years for her day in court to get behind someone in the queue who has perhaps stolen a Mars bar but elected to have a jury trial to drag the matter out. That is simply not fair, and that is simply not British justice.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?

[Sarah Sackman]

No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Matricide is a horrific crime and we are committed to tackling it. Our violence against women and girls strategy will set out how we will halve violence, including domestic abuse, against women over the next decade, and I will arrange for the Minister to meet my hon. Friend.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency is under threat of closure, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. There have been a number of expressions of interest in taking over the whole site. If one of those passes the test of due diligence, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will back the project and allow the continuation of operations at the refinery?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance from the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him.

Decriminalising Abortion

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I come back to what I said to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough: whatever the position at the time of the law’s coming into force, I am not aware of there being a movement or democratic support for changing the law back to what it was before. When we talk about whether laws meet the current standards and societal norms, that is the most important thing.

Let me turn to how the law is applied in England and Wales. Until 2022, it was believed that only three women had been convicted of having an illegal abortion in the 150 years since the 1861 Act, under which most illegal abortions are prosecuted, but there has been a recent increase in the prosecutions of women for procuring miscarriage under the Act. The Crown Prosecution Service reports that in the period January 2019 to March 2023, six people were charged with child destruction and 11 were charged with procuring miscarriage under section 58 of the 1861 Act.

One of those people was Nicola Packer, who took home abortion medication following a teleconsultation, believing that she was less than 10 weeks pregnant. She was in fact 26 weeks pregnant, and was accused of having an illegal abortion. On 7 November 2020, she was in hospital. The next day—

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. May I clarify whether this is a live case?

[Tony Vaughan]

My understanding is that the case has been disposed of. Ms Packer was found not guilty of those charges last month, I believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and I have said, these are human rights issues, and courts have highlighted incompatibilities where that has been the case. It is important that those principles guide our approach. I am in favour of the regulation of abortion, but I am also in favour of decriminalising it, so that abortion can once and for all be treated by the law as a matter of healthcare, not criminality, and individual rights to bodily autonomy can be exercised without fear of prosecution at one of the most physically and mentally vulnerable points in any woman’s life. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Government.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they must bob if they want to catch my eye.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for giving that personal testimony. What she touches on is what we have seen in the debate in this country for several years now: the expectation that women should give a reason why they want to have an abortion or seek that kind of medical care. That is why the Trump playbook being brought into British politics—as we now see it is—is so dangerous in this context. When the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I note that he is not here to defend his views—talks about the “ludicrous” nature of our laws and calls for a reduction in the time limit, he is not thinking of all those people who get that horrific diagnosis. He is sending a bat signal to his colleagues and fellow travellers in America: that under his watch it would be open season in this country—

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that if she refers to another Member, she should have given that Member advance warning.

[Ms Creasy]

I do apologise, Mr Vickers. I just thought that, given his recent pronouncement and the interest that he has shown in this matter, the hon. Member for Clacton would be here.

Let me talk, then, about the vice-president of the United States—I hope you will understand, Mr Vickers, that I could not have asked him to be here today. He is one of those fellow travellers who believes that there are votes to be gained by using women’s bodies as a battlefield; that is what the debate about abortion in America has become. We are seeing American ideas—the concept of abortion until birth and the idea that women should be expected to explain themselves—being brought into our debates. I know that many of us will fight tooth and nail against those narratives and for equality, so I ask colleagues across the House: when people come for our abortion rights or propose further restrictions or “safeguards” for abortion, do we want the power of a human rights commissioner to back us up in those fights? This is our chance to have that: new clause 20 learns from a body of law and of practice in Northern Ireland about how we protect abortion properly. We do not just decriminalise it; the new clause would properly protect abortion.

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and I urge her to reread new clause 20, because from what she said, I do not think she has read it properly. Rather than concentrating power in the hands of Ministers —precisely because of the risk that comes from any future Government that may seek to use secondary legislation powers—the new clause would actively restrict them. It has a triple lock and states, first, that regulations can be made only to uphold that human rights approach and, secondly, that they cannot be used to reduce access to abortion, or to amend section 1 of the 1967 Act—which new clause 20 keeps in play as a list for regulation rather than prosecution, so it does not touch the time limits either. The new clause then states that any attempt to undermine that human rights lock can be done only with the support of the entire Parliament.

Any new Member of Parliament here today has probably had the pleasure of sitting on a Delegated Legislation Committee in the last year and wondered quite what they are doing in a small Committee Room. The answer is that they are making law, but doing so in a Committee where the balance of power has been determined by the Whips and where the Government get to decide who sits on that Committee. Those are secondary legislation powers. It is entirely conceivable that new clause 1, if passed, would give those secondary legislation powers—they are in the policing Bill—to a future Government without any restriction.

Tackling Image-based Abuse

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to Westminster’s attention and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I place on the record my interest as another member of the Women and Equalities Committee.

We must also do better to protect male victims who reach out to the Revenge Porn Helpline. It is time we prioritised victims. We must not let technology develop without the necessary safeguards to protect us all from harm. I was alarmed to hear last week that online platforms do not take images down while they are reviewing their harmfulness; that practice simply exacerbates the harm that victims face. It is vital we ensure that image-based abuse does not get lost in the excitement of this Government’s new, packed legislative agenda. It is time that the legislation recognised adult non-consensual intimate images as illegal content, in the same way that abusive images of children are so considered. The Online Safety Act 2023—

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are supposed to be short. May I ask the hon. Member to conclude hers?

[Rachel Taylor]

My apologies, Mr Vickers.

Summerland Fire: 50th Anniversary

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for the support he has given to the campaign. As I will go on to say, the Apologise for Summerland campaign has made those requests, which I will talk about in more detail later in my speech.

Taking the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, death by misadventure equates to an accidental death caused by a risk that is taken voluntarily. The 50 people who lost their lives did not voluntarily walk into a building comprised of materials that offered limited or no fire resistance. They were on holiday and they trusted that those involved in building Summerland would not knowingly have used dangerous materials. They believed that the building they were entering was safe. I do not think there is anyone who would think that that is not a reasonable position to take. That is why, among many other reasons, death by misadventure is such an inappropriate verdict to find.

The lack of clarity over the fire protections and precautions at Summerland is a huge concern. No schedule of the means of escape existed for Summerland. Enclosed staircases had no ventilation. Openings were not all fire-resisting or self-closing and contained materials that were not fire-resistant. The physical shortcomings of the construction were clear, but the organisation of emergency procedures was also sorely lacking. Some members of staff who were part of the “fire-fighting party” were not aware of their membership of it, demonstrating the absence of satisfactory training.

There had also been unapproved changes to the fire alarm system, creating a delay before the alarms sounded and the fire station was alerted. The automatic fire alarm from Summerland alerted the fire service at 8.05 pm. However, the public alarms at the leisure centre were still yet to sound. The inquiry concluded that

“no organised system of staff training existed....no member of the staff was given any duty or any instruction whatsoever as to his or her actions in the event of a fire”.

It is plain to see why there was mass panic when the fire started.

The lack of training is sadly borne out in the events following the discovery of the fire. One of the most startling and troubling parts of the account I have read—it is a very troubling read—is when the organist, who was playing at the time the fire was discovered, was asked to continue playing to prevent panic breaking out. Only two minutes after he was given that instruction, he reported that the fire was clearly visible at the back of the amusement arcade. Evacuation began only at that point, when the flames had become visible to the visitors, causing mass panic and undoubtedly making matters worse.

Around 20 minutes prior to that, staff had been unsuccessful in dealing with the fire or in notifying the fire service via the automatic alarm system. The inquiry concluded that the building, and by inference the lives of those lost, could have been saved if the fire service had been called shortly after it was found that the firefighting efforts of the staff had failed.

While there was some guidance and a document had been drawn up in 1971 in regard to evacuation, knowledge among managers and staff was limited. There was no evacuation procedure in place and drills had not been carried out. Those in management were unclear as to who was responsible, but failed to make enquiries to clarify that. Staff were not properly trained and there was no one exerting overall control. Had there been, the necessary alerts could have been made and evacuation processes could have been carried out. Instead, some exit doors remained locked, despite the fire service complaining to management about this previously; the escalator remained on, preventing a safe means of escape; and the generators failed to provide the emergency lighting that was needed.

The inquiry concluded that there were failures by the Douglas Corporation and the local government board in terms of providing and scrutinising plans and a lack of inter-communication. The choice of architects was also criticised, with the inquiry exposing their lack of scientific understanding and a failure to focus on fire safety. The inquiry said there was a lack of design management and a continual failure to examine the development of plans. That is important, because that could have highlighted the flaws, resulting in errors being identified.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing forward the debate. As it happens, I was in the Isle of Man last week, as a guest of the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. One of the official guests was a lady called Ruth McQuillan-Wilson, who has written a number of books about the Summerland fire; she herself was a survivor. I want to put on record a tribute to Ruth, who described the events of the evening to me and the events that have subsequently followed, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I echo the support that he has given to the many campaigners who have fought for more than 50 years to bring this matter to light.

The structure, once it was built, did not have proper technical inspections, which would have been yet another stage at which issues could have been raised. The chief fire officer did not consider issues of firefighting on receiving the original plans and was then not consulted on significant changes to those plans. The certification for the building, and indeed the processes in general, are said not to have been stringent or rigorous, and there was an absence of fire safety and evacuation plans.

It was a litany of failings. Despite that, the inquiry concluded that “there were no villains”. I think we can see, beyond doubt, that that conclusion was wrong. There were clear failures in the plans by the authorities, the fire service and the management of Summerland. The inquiry made 34 recommendations, demonstrating how many flaws there were, yet there remains to this day a lack of accountability.

Three young boys appeared before the juvenile court for damage to a kiosk, but apart from that nobody took responsibility or blame—whatever you want to call it—for the failings. I do not know whether it was because there were so many people and organisations that could have been found to be at fault. Perhaps it was the grossly inappropriate finding of misadventure that led to that lack of accountability. Perhaps, given the times that we were in then, accountability was just a little bit harder to find. Whatever it was, once the inquiry finished that was more or less it. Perhaps this failure to hold the authorities or individuals to account is why recognition of the disaster is so limited.

My constituent describes the memorial near to the Summerland site as “insignificant and insulting”, drawing comparisons with a stone bought from a garden centre. She has recently discovered that it is only her family who are mentioned in the remembrance book at the crematorium on the island, and that is only because they paid for their entry in it. I find that disappointing. In fact, I find it appalling and disrespectful. The families lost so much on that day, and recognition of such should not be reliant on payment. That is something that we expect and hope will change.

The original memorial was replaced with something more fitting in 2013, on the 40th anniversary, but we must question why, for the preceding 40 years, those in charge felt that the loss of 50 people did not warrant a proper memorial that would offer a space for reflection and solace. Heather tells me that even at the memorial event in 2013, the dignitaries who attended failed to approach any of the family members present, which she describes as incredibly hurtful for those visiting the place where their loved ones had perished.

After speaking to Heather and Reg and learning more about the disaster, I approached the Isle of Man Government to ask them whether they would commit to a full inquiry, similar in structure to the Hillsborough inquiry—we have a blueprint that could be followed. I accept that, perhaps, given the length of time that has passed it might be a little bit unrealistic to expect that, but I still expected more than the response I received, which simply directed me to the inquiry of 1973. However, the impending anniversary, and perhaps the publicity surrounding this debate, has perhaps focused minds a little more, as I have this morning received from the Chief Minister an email indicating that there will be a national service of remembrance on 30 July, and that he will be holding a private reception prior to that where he has indicated his wish to hear directly from the survivors and victims’ families. That certainly feels as if he has heard the concerns about what happened at the 40th anniversary. He has also indicated that he will be holding an event to thank those from the emergency services who responded to the fire.

The Chief Minister has also said that he will be making a formal statement about the disaster to the Isle of Man’s Parliament next week. Although we do not know what he will say in that statement, I want to use this debate to encourage the Minister to formally write on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to indicate their support for the requests made by the Apologise for Summerland campaign, which, as we have heard, are a public apology from the Isle of Man Government for the

“disregard for basic fire safety in favour of saving money and speedy construction;

a public apology for

“the pain and suffering for the last 50 years”;

and a public admission that the death by misadventure verdict was inappropriate.

I appreciate that this Parliament cannot tell another Parliament what to do, but I hope that the Minister will be able, diplomatically and sincerely, to make those requests and convey the feelings expressed by Members in the House tonight. It is clear that the conclusions of the inquiry fell short of the standards that we would expect, and fell short of providing genuine accountability. There is a need for an apology from the Isle of Man Government for their role in the disaster.

I hope that the Minister will be able to convey on our behalf that, as we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the disaster, an apology is long overdue. The knowledge of the bereaved families that the loss of their loved ones could have been avoided is still incredibly painful, but the fact that their deaths are still legally categorised as misadventure only exacerbates that pain. I pay tribute to the bereaved families, who have never given up their fight for justice; to the Apologise for Summerland campaign for all that it has done to give a voice to the families; and to Grenfell United, which is standing side by side with the Summerland families. Grenfell United has said:

“The similarities between Summerland and Grenfell are chilling”.

We will never know whether true accountability for Summerland might have prevented the Grenfell tragedy from happening. Sadly, there are far too many what ifs, which must torment all involved. I will finish with a few words from Heather, which echo that point. She says:

“We don’t feel that it’s ever been recognised that 50 people lost their lives. I’ve lost 50 years of having my sister…It was a fire that should never have happened. I feel so sorry for the people of Grenfell. If the reports had been acted upon from the Summerland fire, Grenfell probably wouldn’t have happened. You can’t brush something like that under the carpet anymore.”

I hope that following today’s debate we can build on the cross-party support that we have had to date, and that through the advocacy of the UK Government, families will receive the recognition, apology and accountability that they deserve. I appreciate that the passage of time makes true accountability difficult, but I am certain that they deserve better than they have had so far.

Abortion: Offences against the Person Act

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady highlighted a number of points there. As she rightly highlighted, this matter is devolved in Scotland. I know the Holyrood Parliament will be considering it in due course and that is, of course, a matter for that Parliament.

On the hon. Lady’s comments about the public interest, that is one of the tests that the Criminal Prosecution Service applies in making a charging decision—whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest. It would be inappropriate for me as a Minister to second guess or comment on the decisions that it reaches in individual cases.

On the hon. Lady’s final two points, again, whether the law in this area should be changed is a matter for this House, not for the Government. This is a matter of conscience for Members of this House. This House is not shy about expressing its will, as we have seen on various matters, and I suspect that this may well be debated again.

In respect of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the impact the judgment may have, again, I will be cautious in not commenting on the judgment itself, save to say that I believe that, under all the provisions that impact in this space, there have been only two convictions in five years.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I always find it distressing, when these issues are debated, that so little concern is expressed for the welfare of the unborn child. Surely that should be an equal priority, alongside the mother’s health. Does the Minister agree that the least the Government could do in view of this case is review the regulation of the providers who send out these pills?