Decriminalising Abortion

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I note the hon. Member’s point.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is also worth noting that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has explicitly called for telemedicine to be made available to women in Northern Ireland. Given that we have a human rights framework in Northern Ireland, the Government have to respond to that or risk being taken to court again by the chief commissioner for failing to uphold the human rights of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. We have no such protections here in England and Wales as yet. Is that not the case?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is right, and of course it was a 2018 Supreme Court decision that showed that the rules that were then in force in Northern Ireland violated the human rights of women. That has to be at the centre of our considerations.

Let me finish listing the exceptions so that I can get to the point. Risk of grave or permanent injury, risk to the mother’s life and substantial foetal abnormality are exceptions without any gestational time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand the point that she makes. I mentioned earlier that in every abortion two lives are involved. There is the life of the mum and the life of the baby—two lives that have to be considered. We also have to be concerned about backstreet abortions and where they can sometimes lead.

Laws, as I said, send messages and shape culture. More broadly, they are a reflection of our core values as a society. Although calls for abortion decriminalisation are repeated and vocal, I truly think—I say this with great respect—that many people do not understand the implications of decriminalising abortion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has her opinion and I have mine—I certainly have a different interpretation of what she refers to.

[Ms Creasy]

I hope the hon. Member knows that, although I disagree with him on this matter, I have always done so respectfully, and fought for his right to be heard. However, I want to challenge him on the idea that we can have only an opinion on what actual decriminalisation and the human rights framework would look like. We have seen what it looks like in Northern Ireland since 2019, and we now have a body of work by a commissioner at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, including court cases in which she has intervened to uphold that human right, to see the implications of decriminalisation. We may differ on whether the impact is one we would like to see in this society, but we cannot deny that there is now a body of evidence about what a human rights framework and approach to abortion access would look like.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that. She and I have debated this at some length over the years from two different points of view. I think that decriminalisation leads to deregulation, and I have concerns about where we will end up. As I said, I aim to represent the views of my constituents, as well as the views of other Members’ constituents. Another three hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have similar views to my own have been driven by their constituents to respectfully give their point of view in the Chamber today.

Decriminalising abortion by disapplying the provisions of existing penalties under sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or by repealing these provisions altogether, would be a seismic change. I use the word “seismic” on purpose, because I believe it reflects the size and magnitude of what has been proposed. To be clear, regardless of whether the specific provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 are touched on by amendments to other legislation, gutting the laws that underpin that Act would have the same effect. Depending on the model of decriminalisation, the effect could be wide enough to include de facto access to abortion for woman up to the point of birth for any reason. There would, for example, be no enforceable prohibition on abortion on the basis of the sex of the unborn baby that would have criminal repercussions.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Many moons ago, we were friends in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the council, and we are still friends at Westminster. I am aware of the Savanta ComRes polls, which were taken over a period of time. They cannot be ignored, because they provide focus for where we are.

Without criminal repercussions, or new restrictions on abortions that are carried out by a woman or a malignant professional up to birth, are we truly ready to take such a radical step? I do not want to belabour the point, but I find it deeply worrying that a child born prematurely, for example at 22 or 24 weeks, would be treated as a legal person with full rights, while decriminalisation would permit abortion at the same gestational age with no legal recourse.

I said earlier that there are two people in this: the mother and the baby.

[Ms Creasy]

Under our current criminal legislation, there are exemptions from prosecution for abortions that take place up to 24 weeks, and in some instances further, if there is a threat of death to the mother or the child. What the hon. Member is talking about are the 3,000 abortions that happen every year after someone has had the worst news possible—when they are told after their 20-week anomaly scan that the baby they really wanted will not make it past birth. I do not think the hon. Member is a cruel man, and I do not think he wishes to advocate that women should be forced to carry children they know will die to term, but that is not affected by our current regulations. He is putting at risk women’s access in that moment by advocating a reduction in the time limit.

[Jim Shannon]

Obviously, the hon. Lady and I have slightly different opinions about decriminalisation. I have been concerned over a period of time, and still am, about examples of cases involving Down’s syndrome children, including one in Northern Ireland—a lovely, young Down’s syndrome child who would not be here today had her parents not decided to ensure that she had the opportunity to have a life. We are talking about those things. Ultimately, we are talking not solely about what is ethically or morally good or bad, or right or wrong, but about what would be permissible under the law without criminal sanction. That is what I and other hon. Members are talking about: the reality in law, and an increase in late-term unsafe abortions.

Decriminalisation sounds innocuous but, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to, when the public is polled on its effect, the results are plain: only 1% of the public support abortion being permitted up to birth, which is what decriminalisation of abortion would permit without legal consequence, against the views of the majority—99% of people. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that following the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand in March 2020, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to, late-term abortions—those occurring after 20 weeks gestation—increased by 43% compared to the previous year. That is not scaremongering; it is evidential fact. We are asking that all hon. Members take on board that information.

As the evidence from overseas shows, the risk of decriminalising abortion is not only that more abortions may take place but that the dangerous, unsafe abortions that supposedly prompted the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales will occur. To date, none of the legislative proposals for decriminalisation, including the proposed new clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill, contains safeguards that would effectively guard against women seeking abortions while subject to coercion or abuse. Given the operation of the pills-by-post system, it is also not clear to me or to some hon. Members in this Chamber that there can be any guarantee that a woman’s gestational age or her general health would be effectively ascertained under a decriminalisation regime.

Whatever view we take on the principle of abortion, there is a general public consensus that fewer abortions taking place is a good thing, so I am concerned that the decriminalisation of abortion would lead to the normalisation of late-term—or at least later-term—abortions, and have a chilling effect on the broader discussions about the viability and value of life.

I am coming to the end of my speech—we have three hours for the debate, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. Given the ready availability of pills by post without the requirement for an in-person consultation—which I believe is critical—the bitter irony of the decriminalisation of abortion is that it would place women at greater risk of harm. Not all choices should be entirely free or unfettered. We accept limits to our choice in many areas of law, and this one should be no exception. The criminal law on abortion safeguards women by providing clarity and a regulatory framework. Decriminalisation does the opposite, and in a way that is much more damaging and much more critical to the debate. Decriminalisation is not a simple matter of choice and autonomy. If we reduce the debate to that, we will fail in our duty to protect women and the babies.

I urge hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the principle—which, as I said, may be very different from my own—to consider the full ramifications of decriminalisation of abortion. It will harm more than help, and those who suffer will be women who endanger their own safety and that of the unborn children, who are equally important. We must protect both equally. Decriminalisation of abortion would fail to accomplish that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important debate for the many of us who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, because we feel passionately that the equal ability to control what happens to our bodies is the foundation of equality within society. I thank Gemma for her petition and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for setting out the law so well.

I want us to be honest with the British public about what we are talking about and, therefore, what we need to see happen if we want decriminalisation. I was the architect of the Northern Ireland legislation, and I want to be clear about what we did there and about the difference between the two proposals that will come before Parliament in the coming weeks. In Northern Ireland, we did not do what new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to do. The new clause would not decriminalise abortion; it would disapply the law on abortion for some people, but would retain the abortion legislation. Those of us who support decriminalisation need to be clear that decriminalisation must mean repeal. We did that in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have been able to protect women who previously had no access to any abortion provision.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland, and I accept that there are fundamental differences between our positions. She introduced the Northern Ireland legislation, but does she accept that the views there—among both the general public and their representatives—are quite different from those in Walthamstow?

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of people in Northern Ireland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, in the six years since that law was passed there has been no call to reverse it. I believe that human rights are universal, which is why I thought it was right for us in the United Kingdom Parliament to act for all those women in Northern Ireland whose rights were being denied by the previous status quo. There has been resistance, and we can learn from it; that is why we tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill.

I want to be very clear: anybody who claims that they are supporting decriminalisation by supporting new clause 1 is not telling us what decriminalisation really looks like. Decriminalisation must involve repeal, and that is why new clause 20 would repeal the legislation around abortion. That matters because, under the existing framework here, the police have already issued guidance that talks about prosecuting women. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that we do not want to see prosecutions. Many of us have been concerned for some years about the increase in investigations and prosecutions of women for abortion. We have not been able to get to the bottom of why there has been such a surge or why the police felt the need to produce that guidance.

New clause 1 would not stop subsequent guidance targeting the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions, and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process. If we are to finally put to bed the notion that abortion is treated in the same way in this country as endangering the safety of railway workers or the possession of explosives—which it is under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—we must remove these offences from legislation. New clause 20 would do that: it explicitly says that there can be no investigation or prosecution under those offences. Therefore, it offers protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions. That is why we took the approach that we did in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, there was no abortion service at all, but we wanted to fight for what an abortion service should be.

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice absolutely want to stop the investigations and prosecutions. Opposition Members have set out many of the arguments that are made to attack abortion access in this country, and that is where the human rights legislation came in. It is not true that when we passed the Northern Ireland legislation in 2019, there was immediately access to abortion. We had to fight tooth and nail against those who used their positions to thwart that legislation. The reason we were able to do that was that we had written into law a human rights lock, which meant that whenever people in the civil service, the police or the healthcare service did not approve of abortion and sought to resist the legislation, the Secretary of State had to stand up for the right of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. I sat with the Secretaries of State at that point, who were not themselves particularly supportive of abortion access, as they admitted to me that they had to push through that legislation and ensure that provision.

I have read the judgments from the cases where the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission intervened directly and used the powers that we wrote into law to defend access to abortion. Why does that matter? It matters because we know that abortion is already under attack in this country. I know that many are concerned about the Americanisation of our debate here—I want to come on to that—but we have already seen millions of pounds being spent on anti-abortion activism in this country. We do not need to import those people from America; we already have people like Lord Michael Hintze and Lord Michael Farmer, who are more than happy to fund anti-abortion activism.

I pay tribute to the work of Dr Pam Lowe in identifying and tracking that. We can see from that work that there has been better co-ordination of anti-abortion campaigning, against decriminalisation, as well as the arguments made about the time limit and telemedicine—and, ultimately, in favour of the argument that we should be demanding to know why women wish to have an abortion. For no other healthcare provision do we demand that women explain and justify themselves before we provide it. Whether it is the March for Life, the activities on our campuses or indeed the lobbying of MPs, anybody who was complacent about access to abortion in this country before we saw the Trump playbook being brought into British politics needs to look more closely at what has been happening.

When we legislate on abortion, we do not just need to properly decriminalise; we need to properly protect. That is why we tabled new clause 20, which has cross-party support. The anti-abortion movement never asks for abolition; it asks for more safeguards. It asks for more visits to doctors to delay the process of accessing an abortion. It makes a claim about medical technology. Of course, it is amazing when doctors are able to do wonderful things to save the lives of children born prematurely, but this is apples and pears. The people who have to make that horrible choice to have a late-term abortion are not doing so with the best of news in their hearts, but with hearts that are broken, because they have been told that their child will not live past birth. Who are we as a society, here in England and Wales, to compel those women to keep carrying a child to term that they know will die in a way that we do not do in Northern Ireland?

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the mask is slipping today. This is an attack on those who seek to lobby for the protection of life in this United Kingdom, and I for one want to stand up for those people in this debate. That is such an insult towards the many groups and organisations who value life, and who value both lives in every pregnancy. It is outrageous that those people have been demonised.

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels like that. I hope she heard my words to her colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have always—it is on the record—defended the right of people who disagree with abortion to make their argument. I have always—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have always defended the right of people to disagree. What I do not do is defend the right of people who disagree to harass.

Let me talk about another example of where abortion access is under threat. We fought tooth and nail in the previous Parliament to put safe access zones to abortion clinics in place. We absolutely uphold people’s religious liberties, but no one has a religious right to pray anywhere they like that trumps the human right of privacy that a woman has when she has made the choice to have an abortion to go to a clinic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) set out the consequences of that.

Nothing in new clause 1 would protect buffer zones. New clause 20 would explicitly protect buffer zones, because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has intervened to protect buffer zones as part of human rights legislation. Some may argue, “Don’t worry: because she made that ruling and fought that case for us in Northern Ireland, we can apply it to England and Wales.” New clause 20 would put that beyond doubt. It is therefore not some untried and untested mechanism for defending abortion; it is about recognising that, if we want to protect abortion access, we have to repeal the relevant legislation and then say what happens next.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I will of course give way—the hon. Gentleman gave way to me.

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot let the occasion pass without putting it on the record that silent prayer is very much just that: a silent prayer between the individual and their God. Nothing is ever said. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is totally erroneous for her to say that a silent prayer is wrong.

[Ms Creasy]

I understand the position that the hon. Member is taking. Many of us believe that somebody standing at an abortion clinic and feeling the need to pray there, rather than in a church or 150 metres away from the abortion clinic, is not silently praying but intervening on the privacy of the person accessing an abortion zone. That is why this Parliament—[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman chuntering. I want to make some progress, but let me be very clear: those of us who recognise that safe access zones balance rights in the best way recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in continuing to attack them. The vice-president of the United States has sought to attack our nation’s ability to protect women’s access to abortion clinics via safe access zones. The threat that we are facing is therefore not theoretical.

[Emily Darlington]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as have all hon. Members who have spoken today. I am lucky never to have had an abortion, but I have had two miscarriages, and I cannot tell you how vulnerable I was at that time. Anybody coming up to me at that point would have made me feel even more terrible than I already did. I have friends who have had abortions, and it is a terrible choice to make, for whatever reason anybody makes it. Whether the child would not survive or was a child of rape—for whatever reason that choice gets made, nobody makes it happily. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason there are exclusion zones is that the human rights of that woman, who is going through one of the worst times of her life, must be protected at such a horrible time?

[Ms Creasy]

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

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

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

[Ms Creasy]

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

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

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

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

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

This is not a competition between my hon. Friend and me—we both have the same aim—but it is interesting that more than 115 MPs have signed new clause 1, and it has been endorsed by the whole industry. Everyone has signed up to it. Has my hon. Friend had conversations with them about why they have not signed up to her new clause?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels the need to ask that question. She knows full well that despite me asking repeatedly to meet her and to talk to the campaigners she has been working with, that meeting has not yet been forthcoming. I am still open to meeting people, but we need to be very clear on the record: new clause 20 has in it a lock on the activity of Ministers, deliberately so, because this is a human rights issue. It should be a matter that is subject to the entire Parliament, and it should be clear that Ministers may only ever use the powers in this legislation to make human rights-compliant legislation. If they did not, the human rights commissioner could challenge them on it and take the Secretary of State to court, just as was done in Northern Ireland.

Conversely, new clause 1 would allow Ministers to have secondary legislation powers without any restrictions. Again, I ask Members who are concerned about Ministers being involved in writing legislation to look at the difference in that constitutional role. I recognise that only those who have had the repeated pleasure of serving on secondary legislation Committees will understand the powers they can have. Certainly, I encourage people to look at how George Osborne used secondary legislation powers to change the student tuition fee rates and benefit rights. The previous Government used them under the retained EU law legislation. The scope of those powers has been broadening. Many of us respect the role of Government, but obviously we recognise that, should there be a Government with a more extreme agenda in the future, they will also have those powers. New clause 20 would lock those powers down.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because others wish to speak. What matters is that we are clear about why proper decriminalisation matters. Restricting access to abortion does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion. Failing to protect access to abortion does not make it easier for people to have children; it simply means more pain, misery and heartache to be had. There is no right amount of abortions to happen in our society, but a basic human right is at stake here. Members of this House who are alive to the politics and the policy debates on abortion and in politics would do well to think about how they will feel in five years’ time if what we see at the moment is the start, not the end, of assaults on abortion. I urge Members who care about decriminalisation to back new clause 20 and make sure that our constituents in England and Wales have the same human right that they do in France and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Although my right hon. Friend and I might not agree on where we draw the line on each of those very complex issues in different circumstances, I absolutely sympathise with the view that individuals sit within society and we have a wider obligation. Sometimes, laws and our customs are not there just for the benefit of individuals; they are there because of wider considerations.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way and I recognise the points he is making. However, he says that criminal law is the way in which we give effect to the framework that he is talking about. Obviously, as we have discussed in this debate, there is no criminal underpinning to abortion in Northern Ireland, where abortion is a healthcare matter and is regulated as healthcare. For the avoidance of doubt, can I clarify that he would also accept that if we were to do as new clause 20 requires and introduce healthcare regulations that are human rights-compliant to replace the criminal regulation, there would be regulation and guidance about health services? It would not create a gap; it would be a replacement.

[Dr Mullan]

What I said was that traditionally in this country the nature of how we oversee and protect sanctity of life questions and those who might extinguish life is through the criminal law. Of course, the hon. Member is right to point out that in other jurisdictions, including in Northern Ireland, they might do it differently, but that is the tradition, certainly in England and Wales and, in most regards, in Northern Ireland, too. I do not think that it is fair for her to use an example of doing things differently to suggest that arguments different from that are not valid. In fact, generally speaking I found her remarks during this debate to be quite insensitive to the complexities of the issues at hand. She was tempted to focus more of her time on talking about Trump than on the very delicate balancing act that many people bring to debates about this morally complex issue. I will now continue with my speech.

We must also remember that ultimately any prosecution undertaken by the CPS must meet the test for being in the public interest. We must not confuse questions about the appropriateness of sentencing and the appropriateness of an individual decision to prosecute with an overall question about whether the criminal law itself is the right or wrong mechanism through which we regulate this activity.

Proponents of decriminalisation often cite the World Health Organisation’s recommendation from 2022, which advocates removing barriers such as criminalisation. Although such recommendations should, of course, carry weight with many, it is essential to view them through the lens of our unique societal context here in the UK. The bulk of the World Health Organisation’s recommendations are very much focused on countries that have a much lower rate of access to abortion, in all sorts of different ways, and so they sit within a different context. Our abortion laws have evolved over time to reflect the delicate balance between the rights of pregnant women and the ethical considerations surrounding unborn life. I would caution against taking a universal recommendation from a global organisation as a litmus test for whether we are or are not doing things correctly.

When prosecutions occur, they are no doubt distressing for those involved. However, we also should be wary of changing the law in response to individual cases without looking at the operation of the law as a whole and, as I have said, without considering other elements, such as the operation of the law by the CPS, that have a bigger role to play than the law in itself.

Accountability is a cornerstone of ethical practice and criminal law serves as a mechanism through which accountability is ensured in many spaces. Without such safeguards, society is potentially less able to properly address situations where procedures are conducted wrongly. These are questions that demand careful consideration and proper parliamentary debate before any changes to existing laws are made. As I and others have already mentioned, debates about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Gower and others will provide the opportunity for that.

In their response to the petition, the Government have stated that they have no current plans to change the law on abortion and I am sure the Minister will say more about that in her closing remarks. Although discussions about potential refinements to current laws are valid and deserve proper consideration, I suspect that a number of MPs would argue that the removal of criminal penalties must be approached with caution.

As I have said already, the hon. Member for Gower has tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill, and Members will know that debate on amendments tabled to the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did not happen because of the timing of last year’s general election. Successive Governments have adopted a neutral stance on abortion and treated it as a free vote issue. However, I understand that the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention was unable to clearly restate that assurance on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill. I would welcome it if the Minister who is here today confirmed in her remarks that the Government will continue to be neutral on abortion.

Amnesty International has framed abortion as a human rights issue, advocating for its decriminalisation. However, all measures must be applied in a manner that respects the rights of all affected parties, including the unborn. The ethical and moral considerations surrounding abortion are multifaceted and these complexities cannot be overlooked.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will say something about the tone of this debate. As we engage with this issue over the next few weeks and months, it is imperative that we consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape opinions on abortion law. I hope that we will all strive to find solutions that uphold dignity, fairness and justice for all. The legal framework governing abortion must maintain an emphasis on protecting both individual rights and societal values. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue that transcends simplistic policy analysis. It is a matter of ethics, justice and the principles that define who we are as a society. The Opposition believe that abortion law should remain robust, balanced and capable of addressing the complexities of these issues. It will be for individual MPs to decide how that balance is best struck.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate. I echo the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), on the tone of the debate on this topic, as we move forward into the coming weeks. I thank all those who signed and supported the petition, and the petitioner, Gemma Clark, for raising this vital issue.

The petition calls on the UK Government to

“remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person”—

woman—

“can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion.”

I recognise and respect that there are strongly held views on this highly sensitive issue not only in Parliament but across the country. I thank the more than 200 people in my constituency of Pontypridd who signed this petition.

I will make it clear at the outset that the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. I recognise that the Government’s position of strict neutrality on this issue can be frustrating for all involved, and for none more so than me. If I were speaking in this debate as the Member for Pontypridd, my contribution would be very different, but thankfully my views on abortion are well known, and already proudly on the record. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.

I emphasise that the Government are wholly committed to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortions. All women in England and Wales can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. In England and Wales, that access is provided through legislation set by Parliament: the Abortion Act 1967. Hon. Members have already stated the facts of the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales, but it might be helpful if I also do so, and set out the three main offences that apply. When I refer to matters concerning the law on abortion, any reference is to its application in England and Wales. The law on abortion in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 provides two criminal offences that apply specifically to cases of abortion. Section 58 makes it a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to intentionally

“procure her own miscarriage”

by unlawfully taking drugs or using instruments. It is also an offence for another person to unlawfully administer drugs or use instruments with the intention

“to procure the miscarriage of any woman”,

whether or not she is in fact pregnant. Section 59 makes it an offence for a person to supply or procure a drug, poison or instrument with the intention for it to be used to procure a miscarriage.

The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 deals with late-term abortions in England and Wales. Under section 1 of that Act, it is an offence for any person to intentionally

“destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive”

before it is born, unless it can be proven that the act was done in good faith and only to preserve the life of the woman. Decisions to bring a prosecution under those provisions are for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. In deciding whether to bring a prosecution, the CPS will apply the two-stage test in the code for Crown prosecutors. The first stage asks whether

“there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”;

the second asks whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

The criminal provisions should be read in conjunction with the Abortion Act 1967, which provides exemptions to the criminal offences. Under the 1967 Act and accompanying regulations, women in England and Wales have access to safe, legal and regulated abortion services, which can be provided in an NHS facility or a place provided by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, such as an independent sector or clinic. In effect, lawful abortions can be provided in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, where two doctors agree that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of

“injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family”.

Abortions beyond 24 weeks are permitted, if necessary, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, where there is risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a substantial risk that the child would be seriously handicapped due to physical or mental abnormalities.

To reiterate, the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the law on decriminalising abortion. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortions should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Hon. Members are aware that new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill would decriminalise abortion. Should they be selected, those new clauses will provide the House with a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue.

In answer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I cannot and will not comment on the policy behind the proposed new clauses, but I may draw to the attention of the House any practical or legal issues with them. New clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend, seeks to disapply criminal offences related to an abortion from a woman in relation to her own pregnancy at any stage of gestation. That would mean that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her own pregnancy at any stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has tabled a separate new clause that would introduce a human rights framework for future regulations related to abortion and protect existing abortion rights. New clause 20 would repeal several criminal offences in their entirety, meaning that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman or anyone else to terminate a pregnancy. While the stated intention is clear, the practical effect of the new clause is more limited and the powers are unclear, which could give rise to unintended consequences. Should these new clauses be selected, the House will have a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue, and if the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.

[Ms Creasy]

New clause 20 would introduce in England and Wales what we have done in Northern Ireland, and I know from the Minister’s previous comments on the record that she has been very supportive of that legal and moral duty to act. For the avoidance of doubt, can she clarify whether her officials have met the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to understand how this operates in practice in Northern Ireland?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will come back to my hon. Friend with that information once I have spoken to officials to find out the exact details. The Government remain neutral on the policy, but we are looking at the workability and practicality of the new clauses. I will discuss that with her at a later date.

Wherever one stands on the issue of legislative change, I commend colleagues for engaging in this debate. While the Government are neutral on this issue, I want to close by thanking all hon. Members for their careful consideration of these issues and thanking the campaigners who share different perspectives, as well as by recognising the many people who have written to their MPs to share their personal experiences.