Crime and Policing Bill

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Carla Lockhart]

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

In the last Parliament, I, along with a number of colleagues, warned that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Sadly, those warnings have become reality. A study based on a freedom of information request to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, in 2020, needed hospital treatment for complications; that is the equivalent of more than one in 17 women or 20 per day.

Last December, Stuart Worby was jailed after using abortion pills, obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme, to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman against her knowledge or will. Such cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not pushed, in the face of warnings about precisely such incidents, for the removal of in-person appointments where a woman’s identity and gestational age could be accurately verified, and any health risks assessed.

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

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

for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit a small number compared to the quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom. This small rise in prosecutions has been caused by the pills-by-post scheme, which has enabled women, either because they miscalculate their own gestational age or through dishonesty, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women, and even beyond our 24-week time limit for abortions. Tragically, this has led to viable babies’ lives being ended.

What is the answer? I suggest it cannot be to make things worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be bad for women and unborn lives, removing the legal deterrent against dangerous late-term, unsupervised abortions that would put women at risk as well as babies, even long after they are viable in the womb. This would render our already very late time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check.

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

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