No 10 says abortion law change must be ‘safe and workable'
The Commons voted by a majority of 242 to back Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.
The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral.
But Downing Street said that now MPs had made that decision, the Government had a responsibility to ensure that if it makes it to the statute book it is in an effective form.
The Bill still has further stages to go through in Parliament and changes could be made to the measures in the House of Lords.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe.
'But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.'
The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.'
Gower MP Ms Antoniazzi said the change will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
She pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions.
Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law.
Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment.
They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell.
Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative frontbench voted against it, but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour.
Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.
It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Kate Ellis, joint head of litigation at the Centre for Women's Justice, said: 'It is high time that these outdated, Victorian laws were removed from the statute books.
'This proposed change in the law will only impact a relatively small number of women each year who find themselves – in already desperate circumstances – threatened with imprisonment for a criminal offence they probably didn't know existed.'
The changes do not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
6 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility toward's a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'.
Channel 4
7 minutes ago
- Channel 4
Labour rebellion brewing over welfare reform plans
Fairness for the people who need support and fairness for the taxpayer' – that was what Work & Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said she was aiming for as she set out the details of the government's plan to reform disability benefits. But the proposal to tighten the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments, or PIPs, is worrying not only disability charities but many Labour backbenchers, despite assurances of protection for the claimants with the most severe conditions.
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Westminster, not the SNP, can take credit for increased Yes support
After the disappointment of 2014, rather than a general sense of defeat there was an amazing upsurge in the demand for change, and SNP membership exploded. Political meetings were packed and Yes groups were energised, so why didn't the party build on that enthusiasm? READ MORE: Stephen Flynn clashes with Labour MP in BBC interview: 'Don't talk over me' The British establishment got a real fright when the results of the referendum were so unexpectedly close, and determined that it would never happen again. This establishment is fanatical in retaining and defending the status quo, because it guarantees the power and wealth of entitled elites and their lackeys – monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and their misguided defenders. The powerful people who are members of the establishment have no limits to, or scruples about, the illegal methods they will employ to keep things as they are. We have witnessed this when countries tried to leave the Empire, and with reform of the House of Lords which will only happen over their dead bodies. So I am going to answer my question with another one. What dire consequences has the sinister dark state threatened the SNP with if they continue to campaign for independence? Richard Walthew Melrose I'M not surprised that the SNP leadership are ignoring the voices of members or even independence supporters – they didn't get where they are by listening to anyone else. So it comes as no shock to find out that the SNP won't get involved in an independence convention – not for them to try to bring together the various parties, groups, organisations and people who all want independence. They know best. This is the same attitude that has seen independence campaigning stall since October 2014. Eleven years of doing nothing to promote the cause or build widespread support. Occasionally saying 'independence' but not relating it to our current political and economic problems. READ MORE: Seamus Logan: If the SNP didn't exist, we would have to invent it Of course they can say we would be better off if we were independent and had the full resources of our nation to tackle issues like poverty. Yes, they can complain about successive Westminster governments cheating Scotland out of Barnett Formula funding – but you know who is really to blame for this? The SNP leadership who have ignored mandate after mandate, who have failed to link independence with a positive future for all Scots. In 2014 most independence supporters came together – they may have had different ideas about the future of Scotland but they all agreed independence was our key aim. That is gone thanks to the incompetence of the SNP leadership. When you have someone like Angus Robertson happy to meet secretly with representatives of the rogue state of Israel but unwilling to meet with independence campaigners, you know there is something rotten in the SNP leadership. It's time they were all gone. Alex Beckett Paisley THANKS to the SNP's website I was able to download and read both of John Swinney's recent speeches. Tuesday's speech, to the 2050 event, was titled 'Putting Scotland's Future in Scotland's Hands' and consisted of 2178 words. The word independence appears twice. READ MORE: Independence campaigners react to John Swinney speech on independence Monday's speech was on the topic on 'National Renewal' and consisted of 3616 words. I could not find the word 'independence' once. I read it again. I still could not find it. I think it's safe to make some assumptions based on these facts. Brian Lawson Paisley THE SNP National Council meeting in Perth on Saturday must show an urgency for change. Delegates must not be lectured to by the same team of professional punters that produced the debacle of Hamilton. Rather the party delegates must be given a chance to express grassroots opinion. 'Rousing' and John Swinney hardly go together, but this is his last chance prior to conference. READ MORE: The SNP's current strategy is political suicide – what needs to change Hopefully it just might not be necessary to pluck from our history the nickname given to another John, Balliol the 13th-century monarch. He was gleefully called 'Toom Tabard' (empty coat) as he was seen as a political vassal of English power. But our John is an honourable man and just might do the honourable thing, not by resigning, but by inspiring and igniting the party. Thom Cross Carluke THE long letter by James Cassidy (Jun 15) is interesting reading, however in it he writes: '...in the then political climate, a huge amount of SNP list votes were being taken out of the game under the D'Hondt system'. Getting independence for Scotland is no 'game'. The reduction of SNP list votes was NOT a result of the d'Hondt system – it was entirely due to section 7(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. This reduction, of more than one million votes, was calculated BEFORE application of the d'Hondt divisor – this is a verifiable fact. I am personally opposed to the d'Hondt system, both in the way it is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and in its normal operation, as it is known to be the least proportional of all proportional-representation systems. That has been known about for at least 31 years and possibly even 55 years ago when I first learned about it. Michael Follon Glenrothes
