Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Home Secretary knows that I admire her personally. She is a devout Muslim lady, and I share many of her values. I think she is uniquely well placed to comment on this, explain and give us confidence. What is it about these Muslim men that meant that they felt that they could behave in this way, and can she explain that this is—if it is—a very small minority? Can she see what I am trying to get at? She can approach this, and explain this, in a way that some of us cannot, because nobody can ever accuse her of being racist, and nobody can ever accuse her of not wanting to get to the truth.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is difficult to find oneself the spokesperson for billions of people around the world, but let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman from my personal perspective, based on my constituency experience, and the experience of my family and friends, and of the community I belong to back home in Birmingham. There is nothing Muslim or Islamic about the acts that these evil men have perpetrated. It is not behaviour that any of us would accept or tolerate. All these things are crimes, and I do not know anybody who does not believe that these people should be locked up for a very, very long time.

I also know about the anxiety and fear that members of the particular faith minority community that I belong to feel when these are the stories in the news. They feel that a collective view is taken of the whole community. That is why I made the point about making sure that we go after the perpetrators of these evil crimes, and not allowing the behaviour of this minority to affect the way that we relate to the rest of the law-abiding citizens of this community in our country. We are very lucky to live in a very diverse country, and we largely do a good job of holding all the different peoples of our country together.

We should always pursue justice without fear or favour, because in the end, that is the only way to maintain confidence in our system of justice and ensure that we do not inadvertently harm community relations, which is what I think has happened because of the actions of those who looked the other way when the crimes were being committed.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

I will.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. A very large number of people wish to take part in the debate, and I will try to get everybody in, but if there continue to be interventions, some people will not get in. I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can shortly bring his remarks to a close so that I can get everybody in. Thank you.

[Jo White]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

All right, we will have one more intervention.

[Jo White]

Thank you, Sir Edward; I will be very quick. I received yesterday a petition from 500 people, so I feel obliged to contribute. Many Hongkongers relocated here, trusting the UK Government’s promise. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) agree that altering the rules after relocation contradicts the spirit in which and the legal ethics under which the route was established?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob. As you can see, a large number of colleagues are trying to take part. I shall impose an immediate three-minute limit on speeches. Bear in mind that if you make interventions on your colleagues, somebody may not get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I want to turn to the punitive regimes that many of my constituents have fled in coming to this country through a fair system, and to speak principally about those constituents who are British nationals from Hong Kong. From 2021, Hongkongers were offered a humanitarian route to indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That reflected the UK’s historical and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their strong ties to the UK by taking up BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China, following on from their previous British dependent territories citizenship. Rightly, in the wake of China’s national security law in 2020 and the breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, BNO visa holders were promised a clear and safe five-year route to settlement. Even then, that route was more restrictive than for other citizens of former British colonies.

On behalf of the many BNO visa holders in South Cambridgeshire, I thank the Government for the important reassurance that they are exempt from the changes to the length of the route for ILR eligibility. The consultation launched by the Government, however, has introduced other areas of concern for those same BNO holders. I would like the Minister to clarify two points, because although the goalposts for length have not been moved, what constitutes a goal has changed.

First, when the visa was created in 2021 there was no requirement to meet an earnings threshold. The BNO route is a family-based application and each family faces very different situations and conditions, and there are also different divisions of labour in those families. One constituent wrote to me—we know what it means when they write to us with their own stories and fears of transnational repression—about how her family came to the UK as retirees. Immediately, they faced punitive measures by the Chinese Government, who have made it impossible for them to keep their pension—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady must sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, which could not have come at a more pressing time following last week’s announcements.

These suggested reforms are unlikely to deter people from seeking asylum in the United Kingdom—however they arrive—nor will they assist in integrating asylum seekers and refugees into our communities. We hear Ministers speak frequently of the need for stronger integration and better community cohesion, but at the same time they are determined to posture as being tough on immigration. That inherent tension between the desire to appear hardline and the need to foster cohesion means that the Government’s approach is likely to fail and may well create more problems than it resolves.

The Government want refugees to contribute, yet having their status reviewed every two and a half years gives employers little incentive to offer stable employment. Equally, asylum seekers have the right to work only after waiting 12 months for a decision from the Home Office, and even then only in a limited set of roles. Once again, there is the appearance of being torn between professing an interest in integration and a desire to appear performatively cruel towards refugees and asylum seekers.

I welcome, in principle, any expansion of safe and legal routes. The introduction of tight caps suggests that the number of people who will actually benefit will be very small. The displaced talent mobility pilot, for instance, provided places for just 100 applicants. More troubling is the implication that only the exceptional, the talented and the skilled are deserving of refuge. That is not what the 1951 refugee convention says, and it is not a principle that any compassionate country should embrace. Refuge is a protection owed to people because they are fleeing persecution, not because they meet a labour market threshold.

In truth, the UK receives less than 1% of the world’s refugees; most remain in neighbouring countries. While the finger is pointed at migrants and asylum seekers, the reality is that working people have far more in common with an asylum seeker living on £49 a week than with a billionaire. The real threat does not come from those arriving in small boats but from those arriving on super-yachts. We should be tackling inequality and holding the super-rich to account, not scapegoating migrants.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I cannot comment on the content, but the delivery of the last speech was certainly very powerful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

My understanding was that the Government’s immigration plans were geared towards tackling so-called illegal immigration, such as channel crossings—although I would argue that they are in fact irregular, not illegal, because it is not illegal to seek asylum.

The measures we are discussing today are about retrospectively making regularised migration rules more stringent. As such, they will not have any impact on channel crossings, but will instead cause fear and uncertainty for many settled, tax-paying families. This is not just about Hongkongers; there are people from all over the world who are equally deserving of our compassion and integrity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle channel crossings—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions will be brief.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to tackle channel crossings by introducing more humanitarian visas and, once we have, not pulling the rug out from underneath people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them.

I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission. That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course.

I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times. We will reform the application of article 8 by setting out a clear framework, which will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK who do not fall within our family policies.

On humanitarian visas more widely, this country has a proud history of providing protection, and we continue to welcome refugees and people in need through our safe and legal routes. However, it is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. That is why, as set out in the asylum policy statement, we are developing new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution from around the world, in line with the capacity of UK communities to support new refugees.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We always keep those thresholds under review, and we will continue to do so in relation to family and to bringing dependants over.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Home Secretary loves our country and I love her efforts, frankly, because it is not just the fate of this Government that depends on her success, but good community relations, saving dozens of lives at sea and, let us be frank, probably our political fate. Will she undertake to be judged not just by the strength of this announcement and words spoken in the House of Commons but by results, so that we actually make a real contribution towards stopping the boats? Is she prepared to constantly ratchet up the pressure so that if someone is sitting in France, they think, “Is it worth the risk? I’ve got virtually no chance of being allowed to stay in Britain forever. I will have my case reviewed regularly—every two years. I will be sent back to where I came from when it is safe; otherwise, I will go back to a return hub.”? Can we not all agree on that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Results are all that matters. It is incumbent on me to think about the way that we have to reform the system, to make a public argument for it, to win that argument, to persuade people and then to get this done. What I care about now is ensuring that we can deliver these proposals, and we will do so. Then I need to ensure that the Home Office is in a position to run a system properly, administratively and fairly in the future. That is what matters. This is a low-trust environment for the public—all of us involved in politics know that. In the end, the public have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people, but this Government intend to get on and deliver and to win the trust of the British people.

Asylum Policy

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government.

Police Reform

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

London is different in many ways due to its size and scale, and policing is therefore structured differently. I expect all local leaders to meet their Members of Parliament regularly, because that is how we can hold them to account and work together. Members of Parliament attend surgeries, have public meetings and talk to our communities, so we understand a lot of the issues that police chiefs face, and it is helpful for them to have those conversations and to learn from one another. I encourage all our police chiefs to make sure that they have good relationships with their local Members of Parliament, because those relationships make up a very important part of our structures.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister mentions our excellent police and crime commissioner in Lincolnshire, Marc Jones, and perhaps she might pay tribute to him again. The poor man is tearing his hair out. His force is nearing bankruptcy, and our chief constable says that

“Lincolnshire is the lowest funded force in the country”,

with the lowest number of officers and staff per head of population. There is no point in having another reorganisation and just replacing Marc Jones with Andrea Jenkyns unless we get proper fair funding, so will the Minister commit herself now to funding Lincolnshire police properly?

[Sarah Jones]

I am very happy to pay tribute to Marc Jones. I have met him to talk about these issues, and there are particular challenges in Lincolnshire that we are looking at very closely. The funding settlement will be announced in the usual way before the end of the year, and we are talking very closely. I am very aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, we all agree with the Home Secretary, but can we dig a little deeper? There is a reason why the Jewish community is by far our most successful immigrant community, dating from the end of the 19th century. They were determined, and are determined, to integrate into our society in every single way. But let us be realistic: there are some parts of some communities who do not integrate. Will the Government say unequivocally that if someone wants to come and live here, they must think of themselves primarily as British? It does not matter what their colour or faith is—they are British. However strongly they feel about Gaza or anything else, they must approach all issues with our traditional sense of good humour and tolerance.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think everyone across the House can agree and unite around the idea that it is important that everybody who comes to this country, makes it their home and chooses to raise their family here commits themselves to being the best of British. That is certainly my own experience as somebody whose parents came to this country in the late ’60s and then in the ’70s. Actually, the vast majority of our minority communities are very proud of being British. Every survey I have ever seen of minority communities that asks them to describe their Britishness finds a huge pride in Britishness and also in our Union Jack—our flag and symbol of our nation.

There are obviously, though, some issues that we have to confront. There is a question to be asked here about this attacker who had all of the benefits. He came here as a small child and became a naturalised British citizen. He was still a minor when he became British, and he committed these attacks in his mid-30s. There is a question to ask about what went wrong in that period of his life, in those formative years, that made him do such an act. I will ensure that those wider lessons are learned, and I will never shy away from honest conversations about either integration or community cohesion in our country. But I also do not want it to be the case that we allow the actions of a minority to make us believe that our majority are not proud of being British, because my own experience and all the data show that the exact opposite is true.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I just said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, peaceful protest is completely acceptable. We understand that there are different opinions on immigration in this country, and people should be allowed to voice those opinions. When that turns into violent disorder, as we have seen, it is not acceptable. I know that the police behave in a very professional way. They allow protests to take place, but they clearly have to keep the King’s peace as well. The Father of the House is correct to say that we need a functioning system, where applications are dealt with swiftly, people are not waiting for years for applications to be decided, and those who should not be in this country are removed.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I perhaps misspoke; my understanding is that it is to align with the football calendar rather than the start of the season. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in due course. We are now on a countdown to the start of the football season. My husband, being a season ticket holder for Coventry City FC, is very disappointed that we will be on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we will get the provisions in place by then, but the important thing is to get the legislation in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals, which is in 2028. I think we should be in good time for that. A fixed date of two months after Royal Assent would be sufficient time to get everything in place.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill has a deterrent element to it. Baroness Casey’s recommendation was to make sure that it is a proper deterrent. We need to be ready, and we need to make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and people will not be able to get away with it. I hope I have provided a thorough and detailed response that satisfies the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that.

I assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on. Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous.

I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention.

When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground. If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment.

I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot. That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law.

Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court. I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place.

We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute.

I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed. I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality.

The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300.

Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs.

The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it.

We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate. There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create?

We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On the data, the FA reports that approximately 600 people regularly attempt to tailgate at matches at Wembley and other competitive games at grounds across the country. It is not the odd person every now and again; people are regularly trying, over and over again, to get into football grounds. That is why it is important that “attempt” is included. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I am making a point about smaller clubs. We are here because of a political reaction to the embarrassment created by one major failure, but we cannot base good law on one major failure that was on all our television screens. We have to look at all clubs and consider all the difficulties that they would have in implementing this change.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There is a big issue with attempted tailgating to avoid paying fares on the London underground. What does my right hon. Friend think about the Bill, in comparison with what is happening on the underground?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness on the underground and elsewhere. No doubt somebody will try to bring in a Bill on that as well—and good luck to them—but we are talking about a very narrow amendment and a narrowly focused Bill.

I am worried about enforcement, which may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust if they see the law being applied unevenly, and I do not know how clubs will police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders will lead to frequent appeals. People would be tried just for an attempt. I know that that would only be in the magistrates court, but if they faced long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have to apply the law fairly and reasonably; otherwise, it risks being a blunt instrument. Surely we should try to make this sort of Bill tightly focused.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are sensible. They would better tool the legislation towards its rightful end. First, they focus on the actual harm. By removing attempted entry from the offence, the amendments would criminalise only completed unauthorised entries—clear facts that can be understood and proven. We should target behaviour that truly compromises safety and public order.

Secondly, the amendments would ensure that the Bill avoids over-criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes, especially for young people or first-time offenders. My hon. Friend’s amendments promote a more measured legal response.

Thirdly, the amendments would reduce ambiguity, and the great danger in law is ambiguity. “Attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. If hon. Members try to imagine the policing of a crowded football match with people pouring in, I wonder whether they would start to agree that “attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation. We are talking about the criminal law. We are talking not just about somebody being ticked off or told they cannot enter the stadium but possibly ending up in court. The amendments would give a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution, on the basis of which somebody can be tried and sentenced in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide into different areas. As he rightly said, the Bill is quite narrow. I am sure that he will want to get back on track. This is about football, not cinemas.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion.

We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement.

Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we need to take action on a whole range of things. That includes action in France, further action on the network of criminal gangs, action on the water, and action to tackle illegal working and reform the asylum system in the UK. We inherited a system in which there was not enough action on illegal working; that is why we have ensured a 50% increase in raids and arrests. We will also bring forward more reforms on asylum.

Crime and Policing Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Due to medical advancements, we can save the life of a foetus at 21 weeks, yet we can legally terminate a foetus at 24 weeks. I shall be voting against all the amendments relating to the decriminalisation of abortion. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should actually be reducing the window in which it is possible to have an abortion, so that the law reflects the realities of modern medicine?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree. Let me move to new clause 20. I am dealing with very narrow legal points, and it might be of interest to the House that the KC concludes that the new clause

“would render the 24-week time limit obsolete in respect of the prosecution of women who undertake termination of pregnancy in typical circumstances.”

He explains that

“the NC20 amendment would repeal the abortion law offences”,

including those relating to a “late abortion”. In other words, new clause 20 would fully repeal all existing laws that prohibit abortion in any circumstances, at any gestation, both in relation to a woman undergoing an abortion, and abortion providers or clinicians performing abortions.

In the second iteration of her new clause, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has added a measure that seeks to amend the Abortion Act 1967, to create the impression that a time limit would remain. However, the Abortion Act only provides exemptions against prosecution under the laws that new clause 20 would repeal, so those offences would no longer remain under new clause 20. Since the Abortion Act itself contains no penalties or offences, and neither would the proposed new clause introduce any, adding a mere mention of an ongoing time limit in the Act would be toothless and utterly meaningless under the law. New clause 20 would de facto have the effect of fully decriminalising abortion up to full term for both women and abortion providers.

Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it. It is not often that they will hear me agree with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK’s leading abortion provider, but its assessment of new clause 20 concludes that it would

“largely render the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete”

and

“create a regulatory lacuna around abortion provision and access.”

There is one additional angle that Members need to be aware of. On new clause 20, the legal opinion finds that

“the effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.”

Similarly, on new clause 1 the opinion confirms that

“it would not be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, solely on the basis that the foetus is female.”

These amendments are not pro-woman; they would introduce sex-selective abortion.

Sex-selective abortion is already happening in this country. Back in 2012, a Telegraph investigation found that doctors at UK clinics were agreeing to terminate foetuses because they were either male or female. A BBC investigation in 2018 found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being widely used to determine a baby’s sex early in pregnancy, leading to pressure imposed on some women to have sex-selective abortions. That evidence led the Labour party to urge a ban on such tests being used to determine the sex of babies in the womb. A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics similarly found that several websites were privately offering tests to determine the sex of a baby, and the council warned that the increasing prevalence of private testing may be encouraging sex-selective abortions. Passing new clause 1 or new clause 20 would likely make the situation worse. In conclusion, what we are faced with is an extreme set of amendments going way beyond what public dominion demands, and way beyond what is happening in any other country in the world.

[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.