MPs set to vote on decriminalising abortion in major debate
Pro-choice advocates are calling on MPs to vote in favour of decriminalising abortion as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be debated and voted on this Tuesday.
This renewed effort follows persistent demands to repeal sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, a 19th-century law, mirroring the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Prior attempts to debate similar amendments, aimed at removing the threat of prosecution for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy, were halted due to Parliament 's dissolution last summer for the general election.
During a recent debate at Westminster Hall, pro-change campaigners argued against women being "dragged from hospital bed to police cell" over abortion.
However, opponents have cautioned against such a "radical step", arguing that decriminalisation would leave unborn babies without any remaining protection.
Speaking ahead of a debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law.
She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths.
'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.'
She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'.
Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).
A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967'.
Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers.
'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.'
Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'.
She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail.
Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, 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.
The issue has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster.
Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home.
She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks.
The case of Carla Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'.
A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy.
The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border.
On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines.
During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
She said: '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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves considers softening inheritance tax changes amid non-dom backlash
Rachel Reeves is considering caving in to City lobbying and softening changes to inheritance tax that affect wealthy individuals who would previously have been 'non-doms', reports suggest. In her autumn budget, the chancellor confirmed that she would scrap the non-dom tax status, which allowed wealthy individuals with connections abroad to avoid paying full UK tax on their overseas earnings. 'Those that make the UK their home should pay their taxes here,' she said at the time. Jeremy Hunt, her predecessor, had already sounded the death knell for non-dom status, but Reeves's changes were expected to raise an additional £12.7bn over five years. She then announced minor adjustments to the transitional arrangements to the new regime at the Davos summit in January, after a backlash from some wealthy individuals. However, Reeves is now reportedly considering modifying changes that came into force in April, which make the worldwide assets of all UK residents subject to inheritance tax (IHT) at 40% – even if these are placed in trusts, according a report in the Financial Times. Responding to the report, a Treasury spokesperson said: 'As the chancellor set out at spring statement, the government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK.' There have been reports of an 'exodus' of wealthy individuals from the UK, though these have been questioned by some analysts – including in a recent study from the thinktank the Tax Justice Network. When it projected the revenue from closing non-dom loopholes at Reeves's autumn budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility allowed for an additional 12%-25% of non-doms to leave the UK this year. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But Reeves is keen to mollify wealthy global investors, as the Treasury is determined to attract foreign investment into the UK, as part of its mission to kickstart economic growth. She already faces a challenging fiscal picture in the run-up to the autumn budget, as the OBR is expected to revisit its optimistic productivity forecasts, potentially downgrading growth projections as a result.
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour should give over-65s a stamp duty ‘freedom pass'
There's a growing problem in the housing market and it's hiding in plain sight. All over the country, large family homes are sitting half-empty. Children have long flown the nest, but their parents remain – more out of necessity than choice. It's not that older homeowners are unwilling to move on. Many would happily swap a high-maintenance house for a smart, well-located flat that suits their needs. But the reality of downsizing in this country is daunting. It's expensive, emotionally taxing, and, in many cases, downright impractical. Stamp duty is one of the biggest barriers. For someone in their 60s or 70s looking to downsize in London or the South East, it's not unusual for the tax bill alone to exceed £25,000. That's enough to stop even the most motivated mover in their tracks. So, here's a proposal for the Government: give homeowners over the age of 65 a one-time exemption from stamp duty, provided they're selling their primary residence and buying a smaller home. Think of it as a Freedom Pass for housing – a way to ease the burden of moving later in life and unlock thousands of family homes in the process. This isn't about forcing people out of their homes. It's about giving empty nesters the financial breathing room to make a decision that suits them – and benefits the wider market. When a couple in Primrose Hill or Clapham move out of a four-bedroom house, it creates space for a growing family to move up the ladder, and a first-time buyer to finally get on it. A single downsizer move can create a ripple effect of transactions. Imagine what this could free up for younger buyers. Almost four million older households, defined as aged 65 or more, under-occupy their homes, according to the English Housing Survey. A quarter have two spare bedrooms, while 40pc have three spare bedrooms and 21pc have four or more. Would cutting stamp duty encourage more people to move and free up some of this space? The closest way we can measure the potential impact of this policy change is to look at when the property tax was suspended during the pandemic. From July 2020 to July 2021, transactions increased by 19pc compared to the previous year. This is according to research from property firm CBRE, which concluded that the stamp duty holiday was key in stimulating this demand. This effect was more greatly pronounced in pricier properties. Average monthly sales of properties priced between £500,000 and £925,000 were 47pc higher than 2017-19, while transactions in the £925,000 to £1.5m price band were 40pc above normal levels. A stamp duty exemption would go a long way to helping free up space for upsizing families and first-time buyers. But we also need to talk about how hard it is for older homeowners to access finance. Some downsizers need to borrow a modest amount to top up their purchase, but if they're no longer in full-time employment, mortgage lenders offer little flexibility. Even those with significant equity and solid financial histories are often shut out of the market. We need more ways for people to access low-risk borrowing later in life. That might mean longer-term mortgages, more flexible affordability criteria or government-backed guarantees. Without this, many empty nesters find themselves asset-rich but trapped – unable to move because the financial system has written them off. Then there's the problem of stock. Downsizing doesn't mean settling for second best. These are buyers who want to stay in the neighbourhoods they love, close to friends, services and familiar routines. Too many new developments aimed at this demographic miss the mark, offering uninspiring homes in peripheral locations. If you've lived for 30 years in Dulwich, why would you move to a boxy flat on the edge of nowhere? Developers need to do better. That means building thoughtful, design-led homes with storage, light, and enough space for the grandchildren to stay. It means walkable neighbourhoods with cafés, shops and transport on the doorstep. And it means understanding that 'downsizing' isn't about giving up – it's about choosing a home that fits the next chapter. If we're serious about unblocking the housing market, we need to start with those who already have homes and might be open to moving, if only the system didn't make it so hard. A one-time stamp duty exemption at 65. Smarter lending for older borrowers. Better, more appealing homes in the right locations. These aren't radical ideas – they're common sense. And if we get them right, we can get the whole market moving again. Jonathan Brandling-Harris is co-founder of House Collective, an estate agency.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Scottish government to end two-child benefit cap from March
The Scottish government will effectively scrap the two-child benefits cap north of the border from 3 March next year, ministers have announced. The UK-wide policy prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for more than two children, with a few Scottish government will mitigate the cap by offering payments to affected families. Social Justice Secretary Shirley Anne Somerville said the move would help keep 20,000 children out of relative poverty. The payments are due to start two months before next year's Scottish Parliament election. What is the two-child benefits cap? The two-child cap prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April was introduced by Conservative ministers as part of cost-cutting measures. It has been kept in place by Sir Keir Starmer's Labour administration. However, Labour ministers have indicated in recent months that they could scrap the said the Scottish government could not wait for a decision at minister said payments would be delivered 15 months after the government announced it would mitigate the cap, which she said was the fastest a social security benefit in Scotland had ever been added: "This builds upon the considerable action we have taken in Scotland, including delivering unparalleled financial support through our Scottish Child Payment, investing to clear school meal debts, and continuing to support almost 10,000 children by mitigating the UK government's benefit cap as fully as possible." In its Budget announcement last year, the Scottish government vowed to provide payments to families affected by the policy by April 2026, or earlier if said it needed data and assistance from the UK government before it could introduce the Scottish Fiscal Commission has estimated that 43,000 children in Scotland will benefit from mitigation of the cap in 2026-27. It predicts this will cost £155m in that year, rising to almost £200m by Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that mitigating the policy would reduce relative child poverty in Scotland by 2.3 percentage points, equivalent to 23,000 think tank described removing the cap as a "highly cost-effective policy", with an estimated annual cost of £4,500 per child lifted out of poverty. 'Real hardship' However, it has also warned mitigation could weaken incentives to work because some of the lowest-paid workers could earn more on welfare than in government's announcement was welcomed the Child Poverty Action Group in John Dickie said: "It is absolutely right that the Scottish government acts to effectively scrap the UK government's two-child benefit limit in Scotland. "Families affected, most of whom are working, are facing real hardship and the sooner these payments can be made the better."He also called on the UK government to scrap the policy "as a matter of utmost urgency". Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said he would consider "all options" to tackle child poverty.
