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.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who led the amendment to change the law on abortion (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament)
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
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Meet the Blue Labour bros
Illustration by Nate Kitch Blue Labour has always been more of a collection of guys than a faction. From its beginnings in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it was Maurice Glasman and a small handful of Jons and not a huge amount more. It is now having something of a resurgence, and beginning to develop a degree of internal reality, although the reality of its actual influence remains debated. A Blue Labour group of MPs formed at the end of last year; now a parliamentary staff network has been set up. There are, I'm told, around 15 of these staffers so far, planning a roster of events and meetings and general association. Over the last few weeks, I've been speaking to some of the new staff group to try and understand them. What does this lanyard class that hates the lanyard class believe? You can paint a picture of who they are with heavy use of the caveat 'mostly but not exclusively'. They are mostly, but not exclusively, men, and mostly, but not exclusively, quite young. They mostly work for new-intake MPs; they are mostly white, and mostly from outside of London. In short, they look like any random sampling of Labour's parliamentary staff class would. Some work for members of the Blue Labour MPs group; some work for completely conventional Starmer-era Labour MPs. Their diagnosis of what is wrong with the country and what Labour should do about it is commensurate with the rest of Blue Labour in its Dan Carden and Jonathan Hinder era. One member of the staff network views Blue Labour as a project of 'realigning the party with areas it represents'. Having come into the party as a Corbynite, they say they 'used to be much more liberal on immigration', but now believe that in the country the 'Overton Window has moved' and have moved with it. One staffer talks about being the grandchild of immigrants and hearing her family and friends increasingly express concern that more recent immigrants are not well integrated – indicating, she thinks, that worries about immigration and integration are far from the preserve of racists and traditionally anti-immigration parties, but are something Labour needs to reckon with. Another staffer says that Blue Labour is concerned with people who have been 'ignored by the establishment for decades', suffering both 'economic neglect' but also being 'ignored on issues like immigration'. He reckons that the 'liberalism of Blair has dominated the party for two decades', with 'not enough focus on class'. Another thinks we have an 'economy too focused on London and the South East', and that Labour is 'not giving white working-class men anything'. 'You've got to read the way the world is going,' they say, and ask 'do we want it in a Labour way, or in a right-wing way?' However, while my impression of Jonathan Hinder is as a man of total conviction (believing among other things that universities should be allowed to go bust and that we should at least think very seriously about leaving the ECHR), the staffers seem just as animated by the process of thinking and talking about politics as they do by the positions themselves. Clearly one of the attractions is not the specific appeal of Blue Labour itself, but the space it provides to talk about things. Keir Starmer's Labour Party is not a very ideas-y place, and these are, on an intellectual level, painfully earnest young people. 'We debate quite a lot – it's good to talk about ideas and philosophy, and all the things staffers never talk about,' says one member; another feels there is a 'frustration with the lack of ideas from the progressive wing of the party'. A third notes that 'a lot of MPs are issues-led, but not political'. When I ask for political heroes, I get Crosland and Blair: my strong sense is that in a different internal climate, these people might not have found themselves at the door of Blue Labour, and instead been scattered, ploughing perhaps somewhat idiosyncratic furrows in a variety of different factions. However, while their attitude to the government could in broad terms be described as loyalist, the ideological vacuum of Starmerism – famously unburdened by doctrine – and the government's lack of (or even decidemad uninterest in) intellectual vitality brings them here. It's not surprising that the people who are here for the debating society have ended up in the tendency which began life as (and arguably has never been much more than) a series of seminars. The staff group's convenor does sees debate as part of the programme though: he says having 'debate and discussion' is really important in and of itself, but also hopes to help flesh out the Blue Labour policy programme (answering questions like, 'what is a Blue Labour foreign policy?' for example). This desire for debate also intersects with another current dynamic in the party: the total sidelining of the Labour left. Dan Carden, the leader of the Blue Labour MP caucus, was a member of Corbyn's shadow cabinet and came up through Unite (he has described his journey into Blue Labour as being from 'left to left'). Various members of the staff network started their political lives as Corbynites, and even those who didn't are fairly ardent believers in the need for a broad-church Labour Party. I hear some variant on 'Blair never expelled Corbyn' more than once in my conversations. One staffer thinks that thanks to Corbyn's foreign policy positions and the anti-Semitism scandal, 'the entire Corbyn project was delegitimised' and there wasn't a thorough evaluation of what worked and what didn't. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As much as one of the older members I speak to wants to stress that Blue Labour is not just a reaction to Reform and has been 'going for 15 years', the experience of Corbynism and of the loss of Red Wall seats in 2019 has clearly imprinted itself deeply on the tendency's new iteration. The new Blue Labour owes significant DNA not just to the valiant seminar-convening of Jonathan Rutherford and co., but also to post-2019 projects like the moderate 'Renaissance', the Corbynite 'No Holding Back', and the Labour Together thinking on show in 'Red Shift', the report which famously brought us Stevenage Woman. This post-Corbyn inheritance is also present in how the tendency talks about the state and the economy. In one staffer's view, Blue Labour's 'economic populism is more important than its cultural elements'; the group's convenor immediately says that it is Blue Labour's answers on political economy that most appealed to him. The staffers' views chime with the views of Blue Labour MPs Jonathan Hinder, Connor Naismith and David Smith, who wrote in LabourList last week that their agenda is 'an explicit challenge to the neoliberal, capitalist consensus, and it belongs to the radical labour tradition'. There is a reticence amongst the staffers when it comes to Glasman and some of his more recent interventions (the repeated assertion that progressives don't want you to enjoy sex with your wife; an appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast; tirades about the chancellor and the attorney general). While the group's convenor (who tells me that he first became interested in Blue Labour because when was younger he would 'watch and read stuff online, lectures and articles, by Cruddas and Glasman') says the Labour peer's connections with the Maga movement are 'realpolitik', conversations Labour needs to be open to having, others are less positive and more awkward when asked about their long-time standard bearer. They also acknowledge that Blue Labour has, as one of them puts it, a 'brand issue' within Labour, a party whose membership are in the main bog-standard left liberals. They aren't wrong: one Labour MP I spoke to about this piece called Blue Labour 'four guys who claim they do have girlfriends but that they go to another school'. It's hard to escape the impression that this MP and critics like them won't be persuaded by one staffer's arguments that Blue Labour is 'not anti-liberal, it's a critique of liberalism' or another's earnest assertion that he just wants more of our political conversation to address the 'moral plane' of people's lives. Arguments about the out-of-touch nature of the political classes are probably not best made by Westminster bag carriers – as the bag carriers well know. (There are 'too many of me in the economy', the group's convenor, a white man in his 20s with an Oxbridge degree, tells me ruefully.) Everything, however, starts somewhere. Political history is scattered with the vehicles of bright young things, some of which went places and some of which didn't. This group of earnest young people could do worse for themselves than as the staff vanguard of Labour's most discussed faction – even if not all the discussion is wholly positive. That being said, the staff network claims fairly moderate ambitions for itself and its tendency: 'Can I ever see them putting forward NPF or NEC candidates? Honestly, no,' one member tells me. In the meantime, though, there's another seminar to attend. [See also: Labour's 'old right' has been reborn] Related
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named
A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
'We don't feel valued' - Farmer angst over political uncertainty at Royal Highland Show
Inheritance tax and trade deal contribute to general sense of being 'well down the pecking order' Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... With hundreds of thousands of people walking through the gates to celebrate Scotland's largest agricultural show, you would think farmers felt supported. But that wasn't the general feeling among members of the farming community attending the Royal Highland Show in 2025, a year that has seen political change bring an uncertain future for many in the sector across the UK. Political promises Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon opened the show with promise sounding statements, including the Scottish Government's decision to reject climate change advice to cut livestock numbers by almost 30 per cent by 2040. However, Tory MSPs attending the show, including Tim Eagle and Finlay Carson, were quick to point out cattle herds and sheep flocks are in decline anyway, with little to no mention of how policy will protect numbers dwindling further. MSPs, including Tim Eagle (second from left) at a political debate at the NFUS stand at the Royal Highland Show | Katharine Hay Ms Gougeon also announced £14m will be available for farmers to apply for funding for the Future Farmers Investment scheme. Some in the industry, however, felt this will only back a few hundred businesses and will instead just 'get hopes up.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Farmers on the ground were fairly dismissive of the SNP politicians bearing gifts, with some in the showground accusing ministers of paying lip service. Uncertain future for next generation Ewan McCall, who farms Luing cattle near Golspie, in the north east Highlands, spoke to The Scotsman about the uncertainty he feels in the sector and for his children, who he hopes will have a future in agriculture. Ewan McCall, who farms Luing cattle in the north-east Highlands | Katharine Hay 'It has been a tough year,' he said. 'We have had a lot of pressures from government: inheritance tax, the ongoing problems with tree planting and the grab for land for that. 'There are the trade deal issues as well. There's so much uncertainty at the moment that we don't feel valued. We don't really know what the future will be for the next generation.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr McCall said the declining beef herds, if left to continue, will impact the wider agricultural industry. 'We don't want the cattle numbers to drop any further, nor sheep numbers,' he said. 'We need to think about food security at a government level and take it seriously. We are in a very uncertain world at the moment.' On a positive note, the farmer said prices for cattle are currently good. But it's a small bonus. 'There are mixed emotions,' Mr McCall added. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Our personal businesses have been okay. But it's the ongoing background pressures that probably have been putting a dampener on things. 'I am positive about the future but I would like to have more certainty about how things are going to progress and what the future holds for the next generation, for my kids.' Real impact of 'family-farm tax' Farming unions said they are going to keep up the pressure on UK ministers to revise or u-turn on the 'family farm' tax proposals. However, Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray, who attended the show on Thursday, said the party will not budge. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is one of the many worries looming over the farming industry, including for Mr McColl. 'The difficulty is if I was to die early, my kids would be faced with massive inheritance tax,' he said. 'The farm would have to be sold and they wouldn't get the chance to farm and that's something I feel really strongly about. In that respect, it's not good at all.' Laura Needhin, farmer in Aberdeenshire, echoed Mr McCall's concerns. Laura Needhin, a sheep farmer in Aberdeenshire | Katharine Hay 'There's a lot of uncertainty ahead,' she said. 'I don't think the Labour government, in particular, are backing farmers enough. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Inheritance tax for lots of small farms that have moved through families for 200 hundred years are going to be gone. It's a big worry for a lot of farmers.' At the opening of this year's show, the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) called on the Scottish Government to promise a multi-annual funding commitment for the farming sector. Lack of detail on future of subsidies to support farmers It comes after years of uncertainty on how Scotland's subsidy system will work post-EU with only half of the scheme confirmed a decade after Brexit. Sheep farmer and Scotland's Rural College (SRUC) lecturer Heather Kerr said while price stability in the sector is relatively good at the moment, 'it's always something you worry about because, long-term, we don't have a huge amount of information with what's going on with subsidies.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Heather Kerr, a sheep farmer and lecturer at the SRUC | Katharine Hay Ms Kerr added: 'It's difficult to plan so that we can be in a good place when the changes come as they are not things that you can just change overnight.' The college lecturer said while the employment rate for students with rural skills is high, the barrier for new entrants into farming still remains strong for those without the cash for land. At a debate held in the NFUS stand at the show, promises were made from politicians of all political stripes to do more to encourage new entrants and young farmers in the industry. A young farmer's outlook Young farmer Alice Haig, who farms with her dad in Forfar, pointed to multiple challenges the younger generation face in the sector. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We're not as supported as people think we are. There's a bit of a rift in between people in towns and rural folk, and I think that's come on since this UK government has come in power.' She said the reality of farming doesn't always appeal to her peers, which could explain labour shortages in the sector. 'Sometimes younger people think it's a nine to five but it's not,' Ms Haig said. 'It's hard to get a job that's got set hours in farming. It's hard to make a good amount of money in farming. It's also hard to get reasonably priced housing in rural areas. It's cheaper to live in towns and cities, you get better paid, you can plan for the future. So I think farming suffers a bit from that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Laura Haig, who farms with her father in Forfar, Angus | Katharine Hay 'It's not just young farmers. I think the lack of support that farming is getting as a whole means we are not supported as young farmers and we don't see it as a prospect that we might once have done.' Agriculture 'well down the pecking order' Elsewhere, farmers shared the undervalued sentiment. Gordon McConochie , a farmer from Grantown-on-spey in the Cairngorms National Park, said agriculture seems to be 'well down the pecking order' when it comes to other land management such as species reintroductions. Gordon McConachie, who was showing Aberdeen Angus and Highland Cattle at the Royal Highland Show | Katharine Hay He said the increase in raptors has been 'phenomenal', but the impact on the farming community and other species are often overlooked. 'I have no faith in any of the politicians to do anything radical. They seem to be scared to venture into agriculture. We are the whipping boys of the country at the moment. 'Our farming leaders need to be stronger.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Retired farmer Andrew McConchie, who ran a livestock farm in Dumfries and Galloway, said: 'I represent hill farming. The only thing the governments seem to be interested in is carbon capture. Retired farmer Andrew McConchie, who farmed in the south-west of Scotland and represents hill farming | Katharine Hay 'My grandson started farming now, I retired ten years ago, I definitely wouldn't change places with him. You just don't know whether you're wanted or not.
