No 10 says abortion law change must be ‘safe and workable'
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 Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance
The biggest problem with home secretary Yvette Cooper's plan to stop the boats is that it sounds unconvincing. One in, one out… how does that help? Especially when it is more like 17 in, one out? What kind of deterrent is that? But it is the start of a plan to tackle Britain's migration crisis – Home Office figures indicate that last Wednesday, almost 900 people arrived in boats in one day, bringing the total for 2025 to more than 25,000 – and one that could possibly work. It is, genuinely, the only policy that any government, Labour or Conservative, has devised so far that has a chance of doing so. The key to it is that the French government has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel. The deal that has been published today is only a pilot scheme. It does not even say how many people will be returned, although the target is understood to be 50 a week, which is a small fraction of the average 850 arriving each week. But the point of a pilot scheme is that it allows the mechanics of a return scheme to be tested. It has already passed one test that the naysayers said it would fail: it has been approved by the European Commission. Now comes the hard part: showing that it is possible to detain and process arrivals, defeat the legal challenges and then put them on a plane and deliver them to France. Of those, the legal challenges are likely to be the bottleneck: hence Cooper's announcement of a fast-track asylum appeals procedure to try to ensure that migrants can be turned round within a few weeks. If that works, then the aim is to 'build', as Cooper put it on the Today programme this morning. If Britain can send back 50 a week, then there is no reason why we couldn't return all or nearly all arrivals. The Home Office estimates, and this seems about right, that if it can send back 80 per cent of arrivals, that will have a big deterrent effect, and few crossings will be attempted. Of course, there are reasons for doubting that this can be achieved. Will the French allow us to increase the numbers? Will the French even extend the scheme beyond the initial 11 months to which they have signed up? It is bound to take longer than that to start to get the numbers up. Maybe it will not work, but the point about a pilot scheme is that it allows Cooper the chance to try out, at a small scale, the elements of a scheme that plainly could work. No one else has even proposed a plausible and humane alternative. That said, the voters' frustration at the slow pace at which the government is moving is understandable. Labour has been in power for more than a year; the number of crossings is higher than last year; Cooper is only now announcing the plan; and the plan itself looks underwhelming. No wonder Nigel Farage carries all before him. But let us avoid the trap set by social-media bores of assuming that there are easy or quick solutions that two governments, desperate to escape the fury of the electorate, have wilfully refused to adopt. It took time for Keir Starmer to persuade Emmanuel Macron to accept the key that could unlock the solution: that France will take some migrants back. I didn't think it was possible, because the losses are more obvious than the gains for the French president. Yes, there is the distant prospect of clearing the tent cities in the Pas de Calais, but in the meantime what is France to do with the migrants who are sent back? I don't know what Macron got in return, but that was a negotiating triumph on the part of our prime minister. And it will take more time still to crank the British bureaucracy into action so that it is capable of taking the next, decisive step towards an effective deterrent. Meanwhile, Farage will score points by pretending the problem is simple and the solution is easy. His 'solution' is to destroy our relationship with France by trying to return migrants without French permission; to tear up not just the European Convention on Human Rights but the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea; and to detain all arrivals indefinitely in huge prison camps at undisclosed locations. And still he wouldn't be able to deport migrants if other countries will not take them. If there is a better way, would it not be worth trying that first, even if it might take some time?
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Migrants will be allowed into Britain from France for up to three months while claims are processed under Labour's new deal
Migrants in France will be handed a visa to live in Britain for up to three months if they apply through Labour's new 'one in, one out' deal. Details of the new Anglo-French scheme published by the Home Office today revealed applicants will be able to come to this country while their final application is considered. Documents said each successful applicant who meets a number of criteria would be 'granted entry clearance to come to the UK for a period of up to three months' after completing an online application. They will not be allowed access to public funds and will also be barred from working or studying during the initial three month period, while the Home Office considers whether it will grant a longer visa. It is unclear where the migrants will be housed, however, opening the prospect of them being placed in taxpayer-funded hotels. Furthermore, it is not known what would happen to migrants allowed into Britain under the scheme if their applications were later refused. The Home Office also confirmed applicants could be penalised of they fail to 'present for travel to the UK, without reasonable excuse, when directed by the Home Office'. The number of people accepted from France will have a 'cap' equal to the number of small boat migrants who are sent back under the deal, the documents showed. But the Home Office was unable to confirm the level of the cap. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'There are scant details as yet but this risks turning into yet another wide open door into the UK. 'It is not clear what will happen if the Home Office accepts people whose applications are rejected later on, and whether they can be removed. 'And what if the Home Office accepts people without being able to remove the same number to France due to legal challenges? Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has refused to say how many migrants will be involved in the new scheme 'There are a lot of unanswered questions and this risks descending into yet another Labour borders farce.' It came after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper refused to say how many migrants will be returned under the deal because it 'could help the smuggling gangs'. Migrants who arrive by small boat from tomorrow could face being selected for the scheme and placed in detention. Ms Cooper told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'We will provide regular updates, people will be able to see how many people are being detained, how many people are being returned, and it is right that we should be transparent around that. 'But we're not setting the numbers in advance, firstly because there is no fixed number in terms of the overall number of people to come through this system, and secondly because we're not going to provide (gangs) with that operational information.' The agreement with Emmanuel Macron's government will lapse at the end of June next year – just 47 weeks away – unless it is renewed. Last month it was suggested the scheme would see 50 migrants a week sent back to France. At that rate, just 2,350 would be returned before the agreement expires. By comparison, a record 25,436 migrants have reached Britain by small boat since the start of the year, up 49 per cent on the same period last year. Meanwhile, pro-migrant groups have already indicated they are poised to bring legal challenges – just as they did against the previous Conservative government's Rwanda asylum deal. Steve Valdez-Symonds of Amnesty International UK said: 'We anticipate that this deal is likely to face legal challenges from people who quite reasonably will resist being swapped around like mere fodder rather than addressing the claim for asylum they have made. 'Once again, refugees are treated like parcels, not people, while the public is left to pay the price for yet another cruel, costly failure dressed up as policy. 'If and when there is some real detail on how this deal is intended to work, Amnesty will of course consider what further steps we ought to take.' Natasha Tsangarides, of the charity Freedom from Torture, said: 'While this pilot offers a pathway to sanctuary for a small number of refugees, it will rely on the mass detention of survivors of torture and persecution. 'We know from our therapy rooms how profoundly harmful any time in detention is for people who've been through the unimaginable horrors of torture. 'Many survivors were tortured in detention, so locking them up again reopens deep psychological scars and can set them back significantly on their road to recovery. 'A more secure world for everyone depends on international cooperation not only to ensure safety for survivors but also to stop repression.' From tomorrow, any new Channel arrivals will be taken to the Home Office's processing centre at Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent, and assessed by Border Force officials. Any selected for the returns scheme will be transferred to short-term immigration holding facilities operated by the Home Office, such as those at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. After further assessment, they could be sent to an immigration removal centre to await return to France. The first migrants will be returned by the end of August and detention space has already been set aside for the launch of the scheme. The deal was agreed by PM Sir Keir Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron last month after a summit at Downing Street.
The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Pay rise for millions as new minimum wage increase proposed – are you eligible?
MILLIONS of workers could see their pay increase from next year as the Government has set out proposals on the new living wage. The Government has pledged to provide a 'genuine' living wage for workers and says it wants to factor the cost of living crisis into decision-making on wages for the country's lowest-paid workers. A new update from the Low Pay Commission, which advises the Government on changes to the national minimum wage and national living wage each year, suggests next year could be another inflation-busting wage rise. It's estimated the national living wage - which is the minimum most adults can be paid - could increase to £12.71 next year. However it said predicting the exact figure was difficult so the range could be from £12.55 to £12.86. The figure currently sits at £12.21 per hour for most adults. So a rise to £12.71 would equate to a 4% increase - beating the current inflation rate of 3.6%. If minimum wage rises again, it will come into force in April 2026. The national minimum wage is the minimum amount of pay per hour that workers are entitled to. You are eligible to receive the pay rate if you work full-time or part-time. Meanwhile, the national living wage is the minimum wage for those over 21 and is slightly higher. The national living wage is set annually and typically rises each spring to keep pace with inflation and the cost of living. The annual adjustment is made to help keep wages in line with inflation and the cost of living. The national living wage rose in April this year in a move that was welcomed by lower paid workers. For most people it was a 6.7% increase - or a boost of £1,400 a year. The Government has said three million workers benefited from the increase. Scrapping 'discriminatory' age bands People aged 18 to 20 have a national minimum wage of £10 per hour, while 16 to 17-year-olds can be paid £7.55. Millions of 18 to 20-year-olds saw a record 16.3% rise in the national minimum wage this year. This is because the Government is aiming to make things fairer for younger workers by bringing their pay closer to the national minimum wage for older adults. It says it wants to eventually create a single wage rate for adults and completely scrap 'discriminatory' age bands. The Low Pay Commission has said it will consult with employers, trade unionrs and workers on closing the pay gap between 18 to 20-year-olds and the national living wage. It's not clear yet what a single adult rate could look like. The commission will make its annual recommendations to the Government in October so it's likely we will get more details then. An increase to the minimum wage will be a huge boost for lower paid workers - but it could hit businesses hard. Industries such as hospitality and retail, which employ lower paid workers, say they've already seen their costs rise dramatically. Staff costs in particular have risen because of the minimum wage increase this year and also a rise in the amount of National Insurance contributions employers have to pay. As a result, some businesses say they've had to stop hiring staff or even let workers go. What if your employer doesn't pay you the right amount? If you qualify for national minimum wage or national living wage but your payslip doesn't reflect this, you should challenge it with your employer. If this is ineffective, the next step is to file a complaint on the government's website. You can do this by visiting the Government website. Employers who do not pay the minimum wage can be publicly "named and shamed". Those who blatantly fail to comply are also at risk of facing criminal prosecution.
