Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will commence by looking at some of the paperwork accompanying the draft regulations. The fact that the explanatory memorandum says that consultation “took place informally” highlights some of the challenges with this legislation. We know that when the Government have adhered to their manifesto they have done incredibly well, but these measures were not in the manifesto, and then they moved forward with an informal consultation. From what I can see, there does not seem to have been much scope behind that informality. It has meant that the public have not had the opportunity to engage. That is deeply regrettable, and I think that is why the Government are coming unstuck on this measure.

I really urge the Minister to reconsider, not least in order to do things in the right way, trusting the British public to be able to respond to these measures, but also clearly because of the distaste for this. I am really grateful to my constituents who have alerted me to this measure in their correspondence, and to the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the risk.

I disagree with Opposition Members: I do believe that the Public Order Act was a massive overreach of the state, and I have serious concerns about the suppression, as our party did in opposition. I have to question what changed, because clearly something has changed to trigger the Government into believing that that Act should go even further. I have deep concern about that, because at the heart of that legislation was suppressing the right to protest. That has serious consequences for our democracy, for this place and how it operates. We have been able to achieve so much because of protest in Parliament.

I stand for animal welfare protectors—for those people who have deep concern for the welfare of animals. I have certainly campaigned on many such issues; I have led some of the work on the forced swim test, which was referred to earlier. Our time today would be better spent working on how we could perhaps better legislate against that. I note the levels of distress to animals in a pointless exercise, but those licences will continue until 2028. That would have been time better spent.

We must also ask what the urgency is. We know that the average time for a pharmaceutical product to come online is 12 years. We are not talking about something urgent in that respect. It can take up to 30 years for a new pharmacological product to come onstream. The fact that we are talking about a protest over perhaps two or three days will hardly stall the process. The Government are making a mockery by saying that this is an urgent requirement, to the point that they could not even carry out a consultation, as they say in the documentation. It seems slightly dystopian, given that Lord Vallance came forward just last month with a faster phase-out of animal testing programme. For some time now we have been following the replacement, reduction and refinement strategy—the three Rs—to switch from animal-relevant science to ensuring that we use the new technologies available to reduce the use of animals in experimentation. The faster we do that, the better. Again, that is a better use of Government resource.

I also want to raise with the Minister the issue of protesting outside such infrastructure. Supposing the workers within voted for industrial action, and supposing that they chose to strike outside that infrastructure, would that also be unlawful under the Act? Could trade unionists end up with a sentence of perhaps 12 months because they were standing up for their own rights? Of course, the legislation does not state the implications of that. I think it is badly written legislation and should be withdrawn on those grounds as well.

We have existing law to protect against criminal damage, against harassment, against threats and intimidation, against violence, against trespass and against blocking the highway. We also have health and safety legislation. I have to ask the Minister: what is the purpose of this legislation, if we already have that whole framework? Will it be targeted at the peaceful protester who is holding up a sign with a picture of a bunny rabbit on it, saying, “Don’t inject disease into this animal”? If that is where we have got to, it is a really sad day for this Government. Quite frankly, I believe that we are better than that. It is a massive overreach of the state.

I also want to raise my significant concern about the implications for the criminal justice system. I know from informal discussions with the police during the passing of the 2023 Act that they were deeply concerned about the overreach of the state. They prefer fostering a cordial relationship with protesters, because it helps them in their work and in being able to keep order. Having to move into the space of criminality is an overreach. Our prisons, as we hear daily from the Government, are full to the brim. Why are we introducing more legislation to put people behind bars? There seems to be a lack of join-up between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need police officers on our streets as well.

I really do urge the Government to withdraw this measure. If they do so, there will be no need to bring it to the Floor of the House, but we should at least give this House an opportunity to vote these measures down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.

I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.

As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.

It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.

Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.

There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.

As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate.

In a dangerous and dystopian world, our word must be our word. It must be honoured. Many have fled to our land for sanctuary, safety and security, and we cannot change the terms retrospectively; nor should we change them for those to come. We rightly have made commitments to people who have embarked on their settlement journeys, from the horrors of Taliban Afghanistan, to our BNO friends from Hong Kong who have fled the human rights abuses of the Chinese regime, young people who have arrived under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees schemes, and our good friends from Ukraine who have come to the UK because of the sanctuary and human rights we have extolled and spent 80 years leading.

I will say it plainly today. I believe the Government have got this wrong. Their analysis is political, not factual, and their propositions are unacceptable. I agree with all the hon. Members today who have made such pertinent points in this debate. I appreciate how the Tories absolutely destroyed the system. They built the backlogs, did not put the staffing into the Home Office and lost focus and urgency, weaponising our systems. They did not have functional pathways. But all of these things speak of the pace that is needed, not slowing the pathways down.

It has been wrong not to have the humanitarian routes available to so many, and I welcome the Government now putting those in place. But it is right that we honour the schemes already in existence and create the right culture for our country to be safe and secure for others fleeing dangers, so that they have security here as well.

On the issue of language proficiency, what we need is functionality around language. I therefore ask the Government to think this through carefully again. Also, we know that many will not make the earnings threshold. They will be predominantly women who are carers of children and adults. I therefore call for an impact assessment to understand how gendered already our pay is in this country, and how the policy will press into that space and discriminate.

As somebody who represents a human rights city—the only human rights city in England—articles 3 and 8 are not to be questioned. We need to ensure we have secured the right human rights framework and use it to protect people at home and abroad. If we lessen rights for others, it lessens the rights of us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister set out what the English requirements and the earning requirements will be for someone with a learning difference? Clearly, those requirements will be significantly different from those for the wider community. How will they be assessed?

Asylum Policy

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The consultation I referred to in my earlier remarks around the legal framework for much wider use of live facial recognition will be in the next few weeks—it is all but upon us. I referred to the funding for 10 new mobile units that has been made available. The British Transport police is preparing a pilot of live facial recognition technology at selected railway stations in London, which will run for a period of six months. The exact dates will be public in due course, and I will ensure that we write to the right hon. Gentleman with them when they are decided.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

With LNER headquartered in my constituency, I have written to David Horne, the managing director, to offer my support to him and pass on my best wishes to his crew. I put on record my thanks to the signallers, also based in my constituency, who made it possible to shift the train on to the other line. Last summer, I sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill with an amendment to provide greater protections for transport staff in the light of the increased risks they face. With the Bill about to enter Committee in the House of Lords, will the Home Secretary look again at my amendments and ensure that we provide those protections for transport staff?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will happily discuss with my hon. Friend the content of her earlier amendment. Even if it is not acceptable for that Bill, I will ensure that the policy question she raises is picked up by our colleagues in the Department for Transport.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

First, the Home Secretary is meeting our Five Eyes allies who are here for the five-country ministerial. That is incredibly important work in securing our alliances with our United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand allies. These are important partnerships that this Government value and that this Home Secretary is investing in on almost her first full day in office.

On the other points the hon. Lady seeks to raise, she has an absolute right, as everybody does, to protest in a lawful way. There is nothing that this Government have done to prevent her or anybody else from doing that. What this Government have done is ensure that we are best placed to protect the public. I am sorry that she does not agree with that—that is her absolute right—but I maintain that support for freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and this Government will always enable people to have their say.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

I absolutely condemn any action or violence taken against the public or, indeed, the police. However, I wrote to the former Home Secretary twice on this matter, because many legislators here have yet to see evidence that satisfies us about the proportionality of the proscription of Palestine Action and how the Government balance that with the public’s right to protest and freedom of speech. Could I encourage the Minister to review this law, not least because it has an impact contrary to what the Government want, in that the more arrests there are, the more it draws attention to Palestine Action?

[Dan Jarvis]

I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to. I hope she will understand that there are strict limitations on some things we are able to say for a variety of reasons, not least that there are ongoing police investigations and ongoing criminal proceedings. That limits the ability of Ministers to talk about this issue, but within those constraints we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about the reasons for this decision. On a number of occasions, the previous Home Secretary and I have laid out the reasons why we took this decision.

Borders and Asylum

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the campaigning the hon. Lady has done to support students in Gaza, because the situation we are seeing there is horrendous. The Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the truly abominable situation in Gaza, as well as the work we are doing to get out students who have fully funded places in the UK and provide them with support.

On the hon. Lady’s question, I would say that the criminal smuggling gangs use the potential to work in the UK as a pull factor—as part of their advertising—which is a point the French Government have raised many times. The challenge with the scenario she sets out is that it would make it even easier for the criminal gangs to use that factor as part of their advertising to try to persuade people to part with their money and make an incredibly dangerous journey across the channel.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

The stigmatising and dehumanising of asylum seekers has stirred up race hate in our communities, thankfully by only a small number, and I have been really disturbed to see that racism perpetrated on the streets of York. However, I am even more disturbed to hear that there are planned assaults on asylum hotels across the country, not least in York, where we have children and families staying. What policing operations will be in place to protect those children and families from this hate and ensure their safety over the coming weeks?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of divisive, dehumanising language towards other human beings and to point to our shared humanity. We can have disagreements with people; we can have different views about the way in which systems should work and rules should be enforced and we can recognise that there will be people who have to be returned because they have no right to be in the UK. However, we can also avoid the kind of demonising language that ends up escalating tensions or promoting hatred and violence—something that we in this country should never do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the appalling increase in antisemitism, antisemitic hate crime and assaults that took place after the events in the middle east. She will know that, in order to tackle antisemitism, we and the police work very closely with the Community Security Trust and we are introducing new measures to deal with intimidating protests outside synagogues.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of integrating community policing and neighbourhood health teams.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in health matters. There are regular discussions between ministerial colleagues about how we can best join up public services. We know that joined-up working results in better outcomes at a local level. Collaboration and engagement between neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood health teams already exists to tackle mental health issues, and drug and alcohol addiction. I hope that this Government’s investment in neighbourhood policing will enable more of that work to continue.

[Rachael Maskell]

Evidence shows that integrating policing and health is vital in delivering better outcomes in areas like mental health, substance misuse and youth violence—areas that we need to address in my city of York. With both police and health realigning into neighbourhood teams, will the Home Secretary ensure that there is reach across the services, with a named lead police officer, to develop prevention and early intervention strategies, diverting those at risk through harm reduction approaches, including treatment and support?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

With the recently launched 10-year health plan, we are moving away from those siloed services towards a more joined-up approach, including the preventive model of care. That aligns very much with policing and keeping people safe, and supporting wellbeing. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the national neighbourhood health implementation programme and to ensure that policing is part of the conversation from the outset. By working more closely with health and care partners, we can reduce inappropriate demand on policing. Officers should not be left to pick up the pieces when other support services are better placed to help. This is about getting it right—and getting that tailored support—first time.

Crime and Policing Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend’s words have convinced me and hon. Members across the House about her new clause.

The Met police recently responded to a freedom of information request about tool theft, which revealed that nine in 10 tool thefts in the last five years in London went unsolved, which shows the scale of the problem and the importance of supporting new clause 130 today.

I would like quickly to draw attention to some other amendments. New clauses 87 and 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, would hold water company executives to account properly for the first time, and that would mark a huge step forward in tackling the sewage crisis we face in this country. Those individuals should be held liable for their carelessness and fixation with raising bills, while running companies into the ground and ruining our rivers. I wish I had more time to outline my reasons for supporting the clauses, but I refer the House to my many prior contributions on the subject.

New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), would mark a step forward in providing support to victims of honour-based violence and murder.

New clause 122, tabled by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), would strengthen the law on hate crimes directed at disabled, LGBT+ people, and rightly seeks to protect people who are victims of hate crime because of their association with individuals in those groups, and I wholeheartedly support it.

In contract, new clause 7, tabled by the official Opposition, would weaken hate crime legislation in this country, and I fear it is motivated by a complete lack of respect for the decades of progress we have made in recognising the types of discrimination faced by people the length and breadth of this country. For this Bill to push us forward, and not drag us backwards, that new clause must be rejected.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a proud member of the trade union movement.

No one should go to work with the uncertainty each day that their safety might be put at risk. We as a Government clearly support that for emergency workers, and of course we are legislating for retail workers too. New clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), addresses delivery workers, and today I stand to speak for my new clause 11, which would do the same for transport workers.

Every day, transport workers face verbal abuse, sexual harassment or physical assault, whether on bus, tram or ferry. Transport workers, alongside their trade union, the RMT, are calling for new measures to protect them at work: first, the introduction of a specific offence of assaulting or abusing a transport worker; and secondly, an extension in the maximum sentence, from six to 12 months—not least if sentences are now to be served in the community.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I had meant to speak to my amendment 120 today, but that intention was superseded by the Government’s movement on this, which I really welcome. It will close a loophole so that it will now be an offence to abuse an emergency worker on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation in somebody’s private dwelling. I congratulate the Government on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. This just goes to show the extent to which our public servants put themselves in harm’s way, often running towards danger on our behalf. When people are serving us—our constituents—day in, day out, they deserve the protections that we are aiming to introduce in this legislation.

Let us look at the scale of the abuse our transport workers are facing. Transport for London says that 10% of workers are physically assaulted, with 90% verbally abused and 60% experiencing violence at work, and that is just in the last 18 months. In fact, 10,493 TfL workers had incidents of violence or aggression perpetrated against them. More widely, the British Transport Police highlighted in 2024 that 7,027 offences were committed, and just in the last year there were 7,405 crimes, with 3,650 violent crimes. And there has been a 47% increase since 2021.

Out transport workers will not be safe unless more measures are included in this legislation. We are also hearing from other groups of workers, so we need to look holistically at the threats they are facing and how we can put those protections in place to ensure that specific measures are available to help keep them safe. That would also be better for the public.

We should also look at the work the RMT has done. It has surveyed its women workers, and 40% of transport workers who are women have been sexually harassed in the last year, and that, too, is on the rise. Two thirds of RMT members have experienced abuse, violence or antisocial behaviour, but 40% have not reported it as they are not confident that they will get the recourse they need. This is having an impact on their health and wellbeing. The level of post-traumatic stress disorder experienced by transport workers is double that of the general population. That is why they are calling for legal protection for all public transport workers—because of the scale and the prevalence. Moving forward with this will also deter perpetrators and support workers. It will improve action and response times and the support that is available.

We in this House need only think back to the covid pandemic. Belly Mujinga was spat at while working at Victoria station and, sadly, lost her life. She was there serving faithfully as a sales clerk during that period. Her union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, has said:

“While we remember Belly today, our union continues to fight for safe and healthy workplaces for all of our members.”

That is why I am here today: to fight for them alongside the trade unions, the British Transport Police, the rail industry bodies, the Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail and all of the transport unions—standing together, saying they need more measures to keep workers safe on our transport systems.

We often hear about other safety risks that transport workers place themselves in, but today it is about their own personal safety, and I am sure this House will hear it. So I am asking for clear support for new clause 11, but of course I am willing to meet the Minister to discuss how we can advance the cause of transport workers and hope that, if we cannot make these amendments today, we will be able to do so in the other place.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Before I turn to my new clause, I welcome in particular new clause 7, on non-crime hate incidents, and new clause 150, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), which would ban sexual relationships between first cousins.

This Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to support my new clause 108 to protect freedom of expression. That is urgently needed, because existing legislation has been manipulated to create a blasphemy law for the protection of Islam from criticism and protest. As I said in my speech last week, I am not a Muslim, and I reject any attempt to tell me that I cannot say what I think about any religion. No ideas or beliefs should be above criticism or scrutiny.

Crime and Policing Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 106, which stands in my name, but first I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which we have been discussing so far. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke about some pretty harrowing cases, and said how the first lady was utterly traumatised by having had her abortion at home, which she received via telemedicine. My new clause seeks to make women safer by ensuring that they are seen and given the opportunity for proper medical consultation before they get to the stage where they are given inappropriate medication because of a misunderstanding, and then end up traumatised, delivering a relatively mature foetus unexpectedly at home.

The hon. Lady did not say during her speech whether she believes that a baby should be terminated right up to term, but I want to put on the record that I do not. I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and I have cared for and personally held babies in my hands from 21 weeks and six days’ gestation right through to term. I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival, so although I am supportive of women’s right to choose early in pregnancy, I am not supportive of similar rights in relation to healthy babies right up to term.

Until the pandemic, women had to attend abortion clinics, where they would see a professional and talk through their desire for an abortion and the reasons for it. At the clinic, it would be checked that the woman was pregnant and how far pregnant she was. The hon. Lady raised cases of women who believed they were so far pregnant, but who turned out to be much further pregnant, which are well known; sometimes it goes the other way. One of the key reasons for this confusion is that women often bleed in early pregnancy, and they may believe that those bleeding episodes represent a period; when a woman thinks that she is 10 weeks pregnant, therefore, she may actually be 14 weeks pregnant.

That consideration is important in the context of accessing an abortion because at-home abortions via telemedicine are allowed only up until 10 weeks. The reason for that is not to be difficult or awkward, or to make it more difficult for women to access abortions; instead, it is a safety issue, because we know that complications are greater later in pregnancy. What happens in the early stages is that the procedure essentially causes the foetus to be born. If that happens to a baby much later in pregnancy, the procedure will cause it to be born when it has a chance of survival, which can lead to a traumatic experience for the mother as they deliver a much larger foetus than expected. It can lead to bleeding and, in one case I am aware of, has led to the death of a mother who was given pills to take at home when she was much further along in her pregnant than she had expected.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If this is about safety, then we also have to think about the safety of the baby. In my constituency, a baby had a live birth at 30 weeks’ gestation. Tragically, that baby went on to live for just four days, struggling over that period, and then died. Must we not consider the baby’s safety as much as the woman’s safety?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both.

I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention.

If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Ten days ago, and this is Baroness Casey’s independent report. Anybody who suggests that she would change her views and reports for anyone has not met her.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the pace and focus that the Home Secretary has brought to Baroness Casey’s report. She is right to highlight the risk of the online space and the rapidity with which it has become a focus. Can she give assurances that protocols will change accordingly, so that we look for the information that we do not know about, and that the cases of survivors and victims who have been criminalised will be quashed, so that those people do not carry convictions for the exploitation that they experienced?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about the need to ensure that victims are not criminalised for the coercion and crimes committed against them. That failure—the tendency to blame victims for the appalling crimes committed against them—has been a pervasive problem through the years. We are looking further at the issues of online grooming and exploitation, which are escalating. In a complication, more teenagers themselves are involved in that exploitation. It is more complicated to identify where people are being coerced and where they are actually criminals committing these crimes.