​During consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, I spoke in support of measures to end the criminalisation of women for abortion and to pardon those already harmed by outdated laws.

​
​Speech

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 361 and the Government amendments to it.

I was horrified to learn of the increasing number of cases in recent years of women facing criminal investigations and prosecutions on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. The abject cruelty that more than 100 desperate women have been forced to endure under a 165‑year‑old law is barbaric and completely unnecessary.

That is why I tabled an amendment to the Bill last year to stop this, which was emphatically supported in this Chamber in June. The House of Lords recently supported that change as well. As a Parliament, we took that decision because we listened to the advice of professionals and the evidence gathered over a long period of time, and we chose to stand up for women.

Alongside the women affected, I am very pleased that once the Bill becomes law, no more women in England and Wales will be subject to the threat of criminal prosecution on suspicion of ending their own pregnancy. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister regarding current investigations.

Parliament has been resoundingly clear in its support for removing women from the criminal law related to abortion. Can the Minister confirm that once the Bill becomes law, the expectation is that all current investigations and prosecutions under these offences should be dropped? I would also welcome a commitment that she will write to police forces in England and Wales, because they clearly have not been listening to the will of Parliament. We are aware of at least three further women having been investigated for ending their own pregnancies since the Commons vote in June.

As well as firmly supporting the decriminalisation of women in cases of abortion, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer for tabling this cross‑party amendment.

Lords amendment 361 and the Government amendments to it would pardon women found guilty of ending their own pregnancy and expunge records of investigations, arrests and charges under abortion law, whether or not a woman was ultimately found guilty.

That is important. Current law classifies abortion offences as serious and violent crimes, meaning that even without a conviction, a woman’s arrest and interview remains on her Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for life. This actively harms job prospects, the ability to travel to certain countries, and leaves a permanent record on police computer systems—or, in the case of conviction, a permanent criminal record for ending a pregnancy outside the law.

Colleagues will remember that the women subjected to these investigations are overwhelmingly already vulnerable, and are often victims of abuse and exploitation. The retention of these records causes ongoing harm under a law that Parliament has rightly recognised has no place in modern society.

This includes women whose experiences I spoke of in this place last year—women like Nicola Packer, who after complications in her abortion treatment was arrested and held for 36 hours in custody, and then endured nearly five years of investigation and prosecution. She was found not guilty at trial, yet the arrest, charge and investigation remain on her record.

It includes women like Laura, a young mother and university student who was criminalised for an abortion using illicit medication forced on her by an abusive partner. She was in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive relationship. When she was arrested, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone he was involved. She was jailed for two years, and that conviction remains on her criminal record today.

Women who have faced investigation or conviction should not have to continue living with the consequences of this outdated legislation—laws that Parliament has finally and rightly decided should no longer apply to women. That is why clause 361 is so necessary.

While remaining neutral on the issue, the Government have made changes to clause 361 to ensure workability, and I emphatically support those changes. They take a similar approach to the provisions in the Bill providing pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under the age of 18.

On Wednesday 4th March I spoke to move my Ten Minute Rule Bill on Police Declaration of secret societies. 
​
You can read the transcript and watch my full contribution below. ​

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police officers and certain employees of police forces to declare a membership of or affiliation to certain types of society and organisation; to require such declarations to be accompanied by a statement relating to that membership; and for connected purposes.

Secret, closed or private societies have often been the subject of ridicule, from Monty Python to “The Simpsons”. Such organisations have been seen as silly, strange and perhaps old fashioned. Even today, we hear reference to the “funny handshake” club. But if people look beyond these parodies, they will find networks of people with power and authority, and clubs of like-minded individuals who look out for their own. Many often do excellent work raising funds for charitable causes and supporting communities.

The most well-known such group is the Freemasons, one of the world’s oldest social and charitable organisations, with around 170,000 members. It offers people community and support, and it sets out its four core values as integrity, friendship, respect and service. I have met several members who are loud and proud to belong: they are happy to declare their association because it means that they can tell people about the good work they do and counter any allegations of secrecy and nepotism.

I first raised the issue of police declaring membership of the Freemasons in 2024, with another ten-minute rule Bill. This is a matter that I have long believed needs to be put right. In December last year, I welcomed the Metropolitan police’s decision to revise its policy to require all officers and staff to declare whether they are members of the Freemasons or any other hierarchical association. The mandate has been largely supported by Met police officers. A survey of staff showed that two thirds of respondents felt membership of secret organisations affected the perception of police impartiality and public trust. Around 400 Met staff have now declared their involvement, most of them belonging to the Freemasons.

However, the move has not been without opposition. Earlier this year, legal action was brought by the home of freemasonry, the United Grand Lodge of England, along with two serving officers. They argued that the Met’s disclosure policy breached members’ rights to privacy and free expression. Last month, the High Court dismissed the challenge, ruling the Met’s policy was both lawful and proportionate.

For years, the Met has been under growing pressure to get to grips with concerns about the Freemasons’ influence in policing, and that pressure intensified after the Daniel Morgan independent panel highlighted the issue. The panel, set up to examine corruption around Daniel Morgan’s murder in 1987, found serious transparency failings and recommended that officers should be required to declare memberships, such as of the Freemasons, to help rebuild public trust.

The pressure increased in March 2023, after the Casey review delivered a stark assessment of the Met police’s culture and standards, finding them institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. The Casey review was commissioned in direct response to the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Metropolitan police officer. Sarah has been remembered today in the Chamber, as yesterday marked five years since she was killed. After her death, rebuilding public trust became something the Met police could no longer ignore. There is still a long way to go, but they hope that their new declarable association policy will be an important step towards greater transparency.

Across the UK, our policing model relies on public trust and consent, and at the heart of the Peelian principles of policing is the idea that public consent is maintained by applying the law fairly and impartially. The College of Policing’s code of ethics states that, in order to demonstrate that they are applying the law fairly, police forces should operate with transparency.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s 2023 report into public perceptions of the police identified “increased transparency” as a key measure that the police could take to improve confidence in policing. Interestingly, in 2016 the then police and crime commissioner for South Wales told “Y Byd ar Bedwar”:

“If members of a club or society have to disclose, it takes away any hidden agendas… It would be best to have one common system for local authorities, police forces and health boards. Only then can we ensure everybody is being treated equally.”

With these words in mind, I am seeking to bring forward a Bill that, at its heart, provides more transparency to the public. The outcome of the Bill would be to have a public register of associations for all officers and civilians working for the police. Members of this House work cross-party, and this is a policing issue, not a party political one, so I thank my colleagues who have sponsored the Bill, who come from three different parties.

Today, I urge this Government to introduce legislation to make it mandatory for all police forces in England and Wales to adopt a consistent, standardised approach, aligned with the Metropolitan police’s declarable association policy, so that all our police are legally required to declare memberships, past or present, of any organisation with confidential membership or hierarchical structures, and there is an expectation that members support and protect one another. I want to see all police forces in the UK following the Met’s lead. Do the rest of us, who live outside London, not deserve the same level of transparency and impartiality from our police forces?

This is not a particularly new idea for this House. In 1997 the Home Affairs Committee published its “Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary” report, which concluded:

“We recommend that police officers, magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society and that the record should be publicly available.”

In February 1998, the Home Office accepted that recommendation, stating that all new appointments shall have as a condition of appointment a requirement to declare membership of the Freemasons. If I were a serving police officer, I would welcome the opportunity to be transparent and show my dedication to the force and to the public, which is what motivates all of us who serve the public. If we are serious about reforming police culture, as I think we should be, then we should leave no stone unturned. This Bill serves to act as one of those many stones in need of turning.

I must stress that the Bill does not seek to prevent membership of societies. I am acutely aware of the right to association and previous precedent that has been set for this in the European convention on human rights. For 20 years I was a schoolteacher, subject to checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service, but not a register of interests, as I am now as an MP. I feel very strongly about the significance and role of culture within organisations, particularly in public services. All organisations have a responsibility to change their culture for the better by being honest and—I use this word again—transparent about matters relating to governance and day-to-day operations. Of course, one might argue that if such declarations should be made in the police, they should also be made by Members of Parliament, given that we are lawmakers. To them I say: why not?

Being part of societies can be inherently positive, enhancing friendships and fostering new connections, but there are issues that we must address. It is important that we restore trust in the police, and the Bill is no magic wand. However, to quote from the Home Affairs Committee’s 1998 report, “Freemasonry in Public Life”:

“The solution is a simple one. It requires no bans or proscriptions, which generally have no place in a democratic society. It merely requires public servants who are members of a secret society—or ‘a society with secrets’ as freemasons used to say—to disclose their membership.”

It is now time to move beyond secrecy in all police forces across the UK.

Question put and agreed to.


Ordered,

That Tonia Antoniazzi, Louise Haigh, Justin Madders, Paula Barker, Claire Hanna, Chris Bloore, David Smith, Ben Lake, Ann Davies, Liz Saville Roberts, Llinos Medi andSarah Dyke present the Bill.

Tonia Antoniazzi accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 393).

I draw the attention of the House to my lovely little badge. Everybody has been calling it a gingerbread man, but it is actually a handmade felt Welsh lady to celebrate St David’s day, made by somebody from Penyrheol primary school in my constituency.

I am going to talk about something quite niche today. I probably will not take up too much time, but I want to draw the House’s attention to a serious and entirely preventable animal welfare issue that is affecting our coastlines, particularly in Gower. It is the harm caused to seals by discarded flying rings. Once lost to the wind or tide, these lightweight toys frequently end up at sea, where they become deadly. Rescue centres are increasingly treating seals with flying rings embedded in their necks—injuries that cause severe tissue damage, infection and, in most cases, death.

These seals, the grey seals, are a very rare species, and are found off the coastline of Gower. Gareth Richards, my constituent, is the founder of Gower Seal Group and vice-chair of the UK’s Seal Alliance. There is quite a lot we could do, because these flying rings are imported into the UK in their thousands and sold in many retail outlets for as little as £1. They are often left discarded on our beaches or near waterways, where they end up in the ocean. To a curious little seal, these floating flying rings—our toys or playthings—are seen as attractive, as any child would find a new toy, but soon that natural curiosity of maybe a few seconds will turn into a lifetime of pain. When the flying ring is in their neck, it will grow into the skin over time. It is really awful, and I have seen some terrible pictures.

It is difficult to rescue or disentangle seals that are trapped in such rings, and those fortunate enough to be rescued require many months of rehabilitation at a specialist wildlife rehab centre, such as those provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at one of its four centres located across England. As an aside, we do not have a specialist RSPCA centre in Wales; it has to utilise one of those four centres, with the nearest to Gower located in Taunton, Somerset. A single seal caught in a flying ring will cost the RSPCA up to £15,000 during its time in rehabilitation before it is fit and healthy enough to be let out into the wild again. That is a massive expenditure for a charity that relies on public donations. To put that in context, one flying ring costs the retailer a wholesale unit price of 33p, so it is costing charitable wildlife centres 45,450 times more than the cost of one of those rings to rehabilitate just one seal.

However, there is a solution. I am very proud of Swansea council, which unanimously voted in favour of a motion to voluntarily ban the sale and use of flying rings in Swansea via one of our councillors, Councillor Andrew Stevens, who supported the application. Neath Port Talbot council and Vale of Glamorgan council have also voted for such motions. That shows the grave concern about the sale of flying rings. I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister to help me and Members across the House to get all 22 unitary authorities in Wales to ban flying rings, which would make Wales the first country in the world to ban them. Other unitary authorities across the UK, such as Cornwall and several on the Norfolk coast, have banned them, and action from other councils is pending. We can do this.
​
There has been a huge amount of media coverage of the issue—from mainstream BBC and ITV to BBC Wales, ITV Wales, Radio Wales and programmes such as “Countryfile” and ITV Wales’s “Coast & Country”. There is significant public interest in the campaign. There is also a petition from the Save Our Seals from Flying Rings campaign.

Many major retailers are really leading the way—Tesco, John Lewis, Pets at Home, Halfords and Sainsbury’s, as well as a number of smaller retailers. Retailers in Gower, particularly on the coast, have been absolutely fantastic in supporting the campaign. Vets are taking part, as well as Kennexstone caravan park and Pitton Cross farm in particular. People can also read the children’s book “Sammy and the Flying Ring”, written by Sandy Brown and illustrated by E.J. Henderson.

Anyone planning a trip to the beach, whether they live in Gower or not, should buy a traditional frisbee, which were created in the 1930s and are fantastic. Do not buy a flying ring. It is a big ask for the Secretary of State to get the local authorities on board and make us the best in the world. Grey seals are the sentinels of the sea: a globally rare species found off the Gower coast, which is a unique destination—not only because it was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, but just because it is a great place. Did hon. Members know that seals swim 60 to 80 miles in just one day? There are no boundaries on these flying rings—they should be banned.

​Earlier, I bigged up some of the major retailers. I would like to call out Asda and Home Bargains. They are two of my favourite places to go and shop, but they have not banned flying rings. I call on the Secretary of State to urge them to be more like St David: do the little things, and save the seals.

On Tuesday 17th June I tabled amendment NC1 to the Crime and Policing Bill. This amendment decriminalises abortion in England and Wales and was passed with a majority of 242 votes.
​
You can read the transcript and watch my full contribution below. ​

​Nearly five years ago, having suffered a rare complication in her abortion treatment, Nicola Packer lay down in shock, having just delivered a foetus at home. Later arriving at hospital, bleeding and utterly traumatised, she had no idea that her ordeal was about to get profoundly worse and that her life would be torn apart. Recovering from surgery, Nicola was taken from her hospital bed by uniformed police officers in a police van and arrested for illegal abortion offences. In custody, her computers and phone were seized, and she was denied timely access to vital anti-clotting medication.

What followed was a four-and-a-half year pursuit by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that completely overshadowed Nicola’s life, culminating in her being forced to endure the indignity and turmoil of a trial. She spent every penny she had funding her defence. The most private details of her life were publicly aired, and she had to relive the trauma in front of a jury—all that ultimately to be cleared and found not guilty.

Nicola’s story is deplorable, but there are many others. Laura, a young mother and university student, was criminalised for an abortion forced on her by an abusive partner. He coerced her into taking abortion pills bought illegally online, rather than going to a doctor. Laura describes his violent reaction to her pregnancy:

“he grabbed hold of me, pushed me against the wall, was just screaming in my face…pulling my hair and banging my head off the wall”.

Laura nearly died from blood loss as a result of the illicit medication he had coerced her into taking. When she was arrested, her partner threatened to kill her if she told anyone of his involvement. Laura was jailed for two years; the partner was never investigated by the police.

Another woman called an ambulance moments after giving birth prematurely, but instead of help, seven police officers arrived and searched her bins. Meanwhile, she tried to resuscitate her baby unassisted, who was Toggle showing location ofColumn 303still attached to her by the umbilical cord. While the baby was in intensive care, she was denied contact; she had to express breast milk and pass it through a door. She tested negative for abortion medication—she had never taken it. Rather, she had gone into spontaneous labour, as she had previously with her other children. She remained under investigation for a year.

One of my constituents discovered that she was pregnant at seven months—she had no symptoms. She was told that she was too late for an abortion. She had seen reports of women being investigated after miscarriages or stillbirths based on their having previously been to an abortion clinic. She spent the rest of her pregnancy terrified that she would lose the baby and be accused of breaking the law. When labour began, she even delayed seeking medical help out of fear.

Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the Abortion Act 1967, the law underpinning it, which dates back to 1861—the Offences Against the Person Act—means that outside those conditions, abortion remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male Parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020, more than 100 women have been criminally investigated, six have faced court, and one has been sent to prison. The women affected are often acutely vulnerable. Victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation; girls under the age of 18; and women who have suffered miscarriage or stillbirth, or have given birth prematurely, have faced invasive and prolonged criminal investigations that cause long-term harm.

INTERVENTION FROM JIM ALLISTER MP

Can the hon. Lady advise us whether there is any other area of law governing the taking of life in which the guardrails of the criminal law have been removed? That is what new clause 1 proposes when it comes to the voiceless child. Is there no thought of protection for them?

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

The hon. and learned Member will know that the Abortion Act is not going to be amended. New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. I have said it before, and I will say it again: just what public interest is being served in the cases I have described? This is not justice; it is cruelty, and it has to end. Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations, and building on years of work by Dame Diana Johnson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER INTERVENES

Order. I remind the hon. Member that she should not have referred to the Minister by name.

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day.

My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Toggle showing location ofColumn 304Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now.

There has been a cacophony of misinformation regarding new clause 1, so let us be clear: if it passes, it would still be illegal for medical professionals to provide abortions after 24 weeks, but women would no longer face prosecution. Nearly 99% of abortions happen prior to 20 weeks, and those needing later care often face extreme circumstances such as abuse, trafficking or serious foetal anomalies. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 or more weeks pregnant and suddenly decides to end her own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic, with no medical support, but some women in desperate circumstances make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. New clause 1 is about recognising that such women need care and support, not criminalisation.

As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1. I have profound concerns about new clause 106, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which would remove the ability of women to have a consultation either on the phone or via electronic means, rowing back on the progress made in 2022 and again requiring women to attend a face-to-face appointment before accessing care. Introduced in 2020, telemedical abortion care represented a revolution for women and access to abortion care in this country. We led the world: evidence gathered in the UK helped women in some of the most restrictive jurisdictions, including the United States, to access abortion remotely. Here, the largest study on abortion care in the world found that telemedicine was safe and effective, and reduced waiting times.

The fact is that half the women accessing abortion in England and Wales now use telemedical care. Given the increases in demand for care since the pandemic, there simply is not the capacity in the NHS or clinics to force these women to attend face-to-face consultations. New clause 106 would have a devastating effect on abortion access in this country, delaying or denying care for women with no clinical evidence to support it.

What concerns me most about the new clause, however, is the claim that making abortion harder to access will help women in abusive relationships. Let me quote from a briefing provided by anti-violence against women and girls groups including End Violence Against Women, Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid, Solace Women’s Aid and Karma Nirvana, which contacted Members before the vote in 2022. They said:

“the argument that telemedicine facilitates reproductive coercion originates with anti-abortion groups, not anti-VAWG groups. The priority for such groups is restricting abortion access, not addressing coercion and abuse. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does not solve domestic abuse.”

I could not agree more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who tabled new clause 20, had a terrible experience today: she was unable to walk into Parliament because of the abuse that she was receiving outside and the pictures that were being shown. That was unforgivable, and I want to extend the hand of friendship to her and make it clear that we are not in this place to take such abuse.

While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion, new clause 20 is much broader in terms of the scope of its proposed change to the well-established legal framework that underpins the provision of abortion services. While I entirely agree with her that abortion law needs wider reform, the sector has emphasised its concern about new clause 20 and the ramifications that it poses for the ongoing provision of abortion services in England and Wales. The current settlement, while complex, ensures that abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women and girls, and I think that those in the sector should be listened to, as experts who function within it to provide more than 250,000 abortions every year. More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed, but the right way to do that is through a future Bill, with considerable collaboration between providers, medical bodies and parliamentarians working together to secure the changes that are needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would require.

INTERVENTION FROM SIMON HOARE MP

My friend the hon. Lady—I hope she does not mind if I refer to her as a friend—is making a clear point. She has drawn attention to a great deal of confusion and misrepresentation in respect of what she is trying to achieve in her new clause, and she has shared some heartrending examples. However, she has just said something with which I think the whole House would agree. In recent years, we have seen our legislative approach to abortion effectively as placing ornaments on a legislative Christmas tree, tacking measures on to Bills in a very ad hoc way. I think she is actually right: this is a serious issue—I say this as a husband and as a father of three daughters—that requires serious consideration in a Public Bill Committee, with evidence from all sides and so on. Does she agree with me that, notwithstanding her laudable aims and heartfelt sincerity, it would be much better if these complex issues were dealt with in a free-standing Bill, rather than by amendment to a Crime and Policing Bill?

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

I thank my friend the hon. Member for his intervention, and I heard him make that point in an earlier intervention on the Minister. The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now. There is no way that these women should be facing what they are facing. Whether or not we agree on this issue, and this is why I have not supported new clause 20, a longer debate on this issue is needed. However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.

INTERVENTION FROM JIM SHANNON MP

The hon. Lady and I have been friends for all the time we have been here. We had time last night to chat about these things, and we both know each other’s point of view. May I ask her to cast her mind back to telemedicine, if she does not mind? It is said that telemedicine is needed to protect vulnerable women who are unable to attend a clinical setting, but the risks are surely greater. Women may be coerced into abortions against their will with an abuser lurking in the background of a phone call, and pills can fall into the wrong hands, as we all know. Does she accept that, with all the protections she is putting forward to safeguard women, the one thing that does not seem to be part of this process is the unborn baby, and that concerns me greatly?

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and for the recognition that, while our voices and opinions differ across the House, we have respect for each other. I do not see this as a discussion about the Abortion Act or raising any issue relating to it, because this is the Crime and Policing Bill, and the new clause is only about ensuring that vulnerable women in those situations have the right help and support. That is the whole purpose of it; it is not about the issues that he would like to discuss now.

INTERVENTION FROM MR PERKINS

I absolutely recognise that my hon. Friend is coming from the right place on her amendment. I totally agree with her that a reform is needed, and she has raised some very powerful cases. She describes this as a very narrow change, but in actual fact she is asking us to ensure not just that in such cases the police should act differently, but that in every case ever no woman can ever be prosecuted. It is a hell of a leap for us to take, when this remains against the law, for her to say that these women, whatever the circumstances, must never be prosecuted. That is why I do not think I will be supporting the amendment, despite recognising that she is right that such a reform is needed. Can she say anything to explain why there must never be any prosecution ever?

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because the truth is that we have to flip this around. No woman, or anybody, is deterred. This is not a deterrent. The criminal law does not work as a deterrent. These women are desperate and they need help. They may be coerced, or it could be just a stillbirth—it could be—but prosecution is not going to help the woman at any point.

INTERVENTION FROM SAM RUSHWORTH MP

I agree with my hon. Friend that these women need help, but I cannot imagine a more lonely and difficult experience than being a woman who has an abortion under the circumstances she is outlining, and I think that is a problem with new clause 1. Would it not actually make abortion much more dangerous and much more lonely by simply decriminalising the woman, but not those who may be there to give support? I cannot think of any other time when someone might be more in need of support.

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

I do not know of any woman who has had an abortion, at any stage, and taken it lightly. Any abortion at any stage of your pregnancy is a life-changing experience. That is why I do not take this lightly. That is why, whether it is six weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks or whatever, and whether it is in term or out of term, that experience of child loss, whether it is planned or not, stays with a woman for the rest of her life. I do not take this easily, standing up here with the abuse we have had outside this Chamber. This is a serious issue and these are the women who need the help. They need that help and they need it now. We cannot continue in this way. This very simple amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would take the women out of that situation, and that is what I am seeking to achieve.

INTERVENTION FROM ANGUS MACDONALD MP

If a woman goes all the way through to full term and then decides it is an inconvenience, does the hon. Lady still think that she should be covered by this legal protection?

TONIA ANTONIAZZI MP RESUMES

Wow. I would like to know if the hon. Member actually knows of any woman who would put themselves in that situation if there was not coercion or control of some kind. Obviously, a lot of research and conversations have been going on for years on this issue. I understand that people across the House have deeply held religious views—indeed, I was brought up a Catholic. My issue, from what I have been told, is this: how would that woman go about it? If it was by taking abortion pills, she would have a baby. Painting a picture of killing an unborn child in that way does not help to serve what we are doing in this place. We need to protect the women. [Interruption.] I need to make progress.

In the meantime, doctors, nurses, midwives, medical bodies, abortion providers and parliamentarians have come together to try to end the criminal prosecution of women on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. This is a specific and urgent problem, and one that is simple to fix. New clause 1 is the only amendment that would protect women currently at risk of prosecution and protect abortion services. That is why it has the explicit backing of every abortion provider and every organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing also endorse it. Numerous violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England and Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1.

The public overwhelmingly support this change too. I implore colleagues not to lose sight of the moral imperative here: namely, vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is urgent. We know that multiple women are still in the system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this in a simple and secure manner. This is the right change at the right time, so I implore colleagues who want to protect women and abortion services to vote for new clause 1. Let us ensure that not a single desperate woman is ever again subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments of their lives. There must be no more Lauras. There must be no more Nicola Packers.​

On Monday 10 March I spoke in the Crime and Policing Bill debate in Parliament. 
​
You can read the transcript and watch my full contribution below. 

This Labour Government have made the unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench take it extremely seriously, and I agree with them that it will require a transformative approach. I welcome the measures in the Bill to tackle intimate image abuse, stalking, spiking and the sexual exploitation of children, which mark the beginning of the Government’s work to make good their ambition by giving victims the protections that they deserve and need.

In that spirit, I believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for the House to tackle commercial sexual exploitation—a key form and engine of violence against women and girls—in giving victims of the sex trade the measures and protections that they need, and I intend to table the appropriate amendments to reflect that. The majority of people exploited through the sex trade are women and girls, while the overwhelming majority of people who pay to exploit them sexually are men. Extensive evidence shows that most women exploited through this insidious trade were highly vulnerable before their involvement and suffer acute harms as a result, including a disproportionate risk of violence. I know that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who chaired the Home Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, has done some excellent work in this area.

Sadly, the demand for sexual exploitation is not being deterred, and victims themselves face the threat of criminal sanctions. The Bill gives us an opportunity to change that: to end impunity for punters who pay to abuse women, to take concrete action against pimping websites, and to remove the threat of criminal sanctions from victims to offer those vulnerable women the support that they need. The Bill does much for victims of crime and abuse, and it is evidence of the Government treating violence against women and girls as the emergency that it is. I believe that by strengthening the response to commercial sexual exploitation we can make significant headway in halving that violence.

Speaking of highly vulnerable women—whose plight drives much of the work that I do—I want to say something about abortion. The law underpinning abortion dates back to 1861, before women even had the right to vote. Under that cruel and outdated law, about 100 women have been investigated by the police in the past five years alone, and another woman is set to go on trial in April. The women caught up in this law are very vulnerable and often desperate, but they are subject to the same laws that apply to violent partners who use physical abuse, coercion or poisoning to end a pregnancy without consent. The law should be a tool to protect those women, not to punish them for the effects of the abuse that they have suffered.

Westminster voted to repeal the laws criminalising women in Northern Ireland in 2019, but they remain in place in England and Wales. There should be parity in the law across the UK so that my constituents have the same rights as my colleagues’ constituents in Northern Ireland. Abortion remains a free vote issue, and I recognise that any changes in the law in this area must be led by Back Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Minister was committed to this change before the election last year, and Members on both sides of the House supported her amendment to remove these women from the criminal law. I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to revisit this issue in the same collegiate way.

On Thursday 6 March 2025 I spoke in the International Women’s Day​ debate in Parliament. 
​
You can read the transcript and watch my full contribution below. ​

Ahead of International Women’s Day, we must remember that violence against women and girls is not inevitable. Men who kill, men who rape, and men who abuse and sexually harass do so in the context of an entrenched sex discrimination that normalises male predatory behaviour and quickly blames victims, but with sufficient will and a change in that context, it can and must be ended. That is why the most welcome change since last year’s International Women’s Day is that we now have a Labour Government.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, I have a particular interest in prostitution. The reports from the Femicide Census—whose authors, Clarrie and Karen, are here today—are harrowing but none the less groundbreaking. The latest report, published yesterday, looks in detail at 2,000 completed cases of women killed by men that are on the database. That is 2,000 too many. Forty-five of the women who had been killed were identified as being involved, or having been involved, in prostitution, but as women were only included in this cohort if their involvement in prostitution had been explicitly mentioned in either official documents or the media, that is likely to be a huge undercount. The researchers found that of this cohort, women killed by men in the UK who had been involved in prostitution tended to be younger and were less likely to have been born in the UK than any other women killed by men, and the data shows that women involved in prostitution are also the most vulnerable in society.

A Home Office report noted that approximately 50% of women involved in prostitution in the UK started being paid for sex acts before they were 18 years old, while up to 95% of women involved in street prostitution are believed to be problematic drug users. They are indeed the most vulnerable—and this not a job; this is not work.

Women involved in prostitution are disproportionately victims of violence, including fatal violence. In their deaths they are more likely to be subjected to sexual violence, and after death their bodies are more likely to be desecrated. That is not a coincidence. Prostitution is the oldest form of sexual exploitation—a form of violence against women and girls. It is another manifestation of sexual inequality.

All in all, women and girls matter, including those who are exploited in the sex trade, to whom I wish to dedicate my speech.

Happy St David’s Day, everyone. A lot can change in a year, so I had a look back at my speech from last year to see what is different and what has stayed the same. It turns out that I only need to make one adjustment to my opening lines from last year, so here goes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate—one that I look forward to every year.

My apologies for taking out the name of the former right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, as he is a good friend. As they say, needs must. Like last year, we are back again after three defeats for Wales in the men’s Six Nations. I am hopeful, however, that the women’s squad will provide some national joy when their tournament kicks off later in March.

Moving on to the new, perhaps the biggest change in the last 12 months is that we now have a Labour Government in the UK, working with the Labour Government in Wales. Labour took 27 seats in Wales, with 10 newbies, some of whom are here today, and I welcome them with open arms. This is one of the parliamentary highlights of the year. I extend that welcome to our new Welsh MPs in other parties. We may not be aligned on everything, but we all do care deeply about getting the best outcomes for Wales.

Following the boundary changes at the general election, my team and I have been working alongside two Labour MSs: Rebecca Evans of Gower and Julie James of Swansea West. Both have recently announced that they will stand down at the next Senedd election, so I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their service to their constituents and the people of Wales in their ministerial roles.

I have told Members of this place many times before that I represent the most beautiful part of Wales, and that remains unchanged. Gower is world-famous for its breathtaking coastline, so naturally the quality of our seawater is deeply important to my constituents and me. In the last 12 months, I have set up a campaign to test the bathing water throughout the whole of the winter season. The secret of its success is the commitment of my constituents, local businesses and the Gower Society. Those of us who live near the coast know that our constituents swim or dip in the sea all year round, not just during the bathing season. I pay tribute to Dawn Thomas from Nature Days, who has gathered all the data, and Sarah Samuel, the secretary of the Gower Society; they have been absolutely outstanding in running the programme. What we are doing is new, so their guidance is really important, and it will inform both the Welsh Government and the UK Government.

Gower is also known for its rural landscape, and farming plays a pivotal role in the constituency. Many farmers have rightly raised concerns about the announcements in the Budget relating to inheritance tax, and I want to assure them that I will continue to listen and to share their concerns with the Government, ensuring that their voices are heard.

As in many rural communities, pubs are hugely important in Gower. On Tuesday next week, I will welcome Lara from the Kings Head in Llangennith, as she is a pub finalist in the community pub hero awards—make sure you are there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is the best night in the parliamentary calendar. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group—of course I am —I am delighted that there is some local representation at PubAid’s annual awards, which celebrate the contribution that pubs and hospitality make to their communities.

Some things will never change, and I want to talk about women in sport in Wales. I congratulate the Wales women’s football team on reaching this year’s Euros tournament for the first time. Years of hard work and dedication have paid off, and I wish them well in Switzerland, particularly against our neighbours and old sporting rivals, the English. But do not worry, and panic not— I have not forgotten about the rugby. The women’s rugby world cup is coming.

It is an honour to follow the Father of the House; I hope not to weary the House with my speech. Today, the Chancellor has been extraordinary in her strength and her ability to turn a really bad situation into a really good one. We cannot hide from the fact that we have had 14 years of Tory Government. While those on social media may say, “Oh, the Labour party is just slagging off the Tories for the last 14 years,” those 14 years are the reason I decided to stand to be a Member of Parliament. Having been the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor when she was the shadow Chancellor, and having been the shadow Whip to the Treasury team, I know the integrity and seriousness with which they will have dealt with her first Budget.

The scaremongering of the Leader of the Opposition, pretending to be a man of the people, really sticks in my throat. I do not know how he has the audacity after 14 years of Tory Government. However, the Labour party and this Labour Government have promised change from the failure of the last 14 years, and the Budget shows our commitment to deliver that. The scale of the challenge is gargantuan, and I know that the Chancellor has made some tough but necessary decisions. Although inflation has subsided to around 2%, helping to boost household incomes, interest rates are predicted to be cut later in the year, extending household budgets a bit more. I need not remind the House that the inflation reached 11% under the last Government.

Today, I will wear a number of hats—metaphorically, of course. I am the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is very important. I am also the MP for a constituency where agriculture plays a huge role. Many of my farming constituents, and many farmers around the country, were concerned to hear speculation regarding the removal or upheaval of inheritance tax reliefs, including the agricultural property relief and business property relief. With many farmers still feeling the impact of the loss of direct payments, two years of severe flooding, high inflation and extremely volatile market conditions, the industry welcomed reassurances from Labour last year that agricultural property relief would not be changed.

Family farms are the backbone of the industry, especially in my constituency of Gower. Farming is in these people’s blood. They do not do it for financial benefit, because for many of them there is not much money in it. They do it because it is their life and their calling. The 100% rate of relief continuing for the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business assets to help to protect family farms and businesses is most welcome, but I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss with the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Treasury team how we can ensure that family farms that may come just over the threshold can continue to play their role in our country, and how we can support them through the change and avoid any unintended consequences.

I am hopeful that measures in the Budget will help the industry by driving ambition and investment. Investment in our agricultural sector will improve our food security and give farmers confidence in a Labour Government.

As well as agriculture, brewing and hospitality have a huge footprint in my constituency and across every United Kingdom constituency. These sectors support 1 million jobs, provide £17 billion in wages and deliver £34.3 billion of gross value added across the UK economy. The brewing and hospitality sectors are vital to the economic and social wellbeing of our communities across the United Kingdom; however, the industry remains under a great deal of pressure post the pandemic. Supported by a number of members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I wrote to the Chancellor highlighting key areas in which the Budget could make a positive impact on the brewing and hospitality sectors.


First, the industry previously welcomed the Government’s pledge to reform the business rates system, and I welcome today’s announcement of the Chancellor’s commitment to permanently lower business rates multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. I acknowledge that the drop to 40% relief will cause concern, so I hope that the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will work with the sector to address those concerns.


Secondly, the beer and pub sector is one of the highest taxed sectors of the economy in recent years. The industry has supported the alcohol duty review. The cutting of duty on draught products is a recognition of the commitment to pubs and smaller breweries. Again, I hope that concerns around the increase on non-draught products in line with RPI will be listened to.

Finally, I am pleased to hear the Chancellor commit to ensuring that Northern Ireland receives its fair share, with an extra £1.7 billion received through the Barnett formula. I am personally delighted to read that £730,000 will be given to the Executive to support integrated education, and a further £45.8 million will be given to support the vital work of the additional security fund of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime.

Aside from that, concerns have been raised with me about future funding applications for organisations in Northern Ireland—whether about the shared prosperity fund, the city deals, or, let us not forget, the poor execution of the levelling-up fund under the last Government. Community groups play such a vital role in Northern Ireland, and we must recognise that. The shared prosperity fund has been a lifeline for many organisations, and although it is continuing at a reduced rate, I welcome the fact that the Budget puts aside £1 million for community groups in Northern Ireland. The decision on the Causeway Coast and Mid South West city deals was paused during the pre-Budget spending review, so I am sure that the people behind those deals will be absolutely delighted with the announcement that they will go ahead.

I am hopeful that the Government will work well with our devolved Governments. As we have seen, the last 14 years have worked against the Labour Government in Wales. We must have the best outcomes for people across the United Kingdom. The increase in funding through the Barnett formula shows positive commitment to devolution. The Budget is difficult, but it is necessary. It is a once-in-a-generation Budget. It will, and it must, deliver the change that our constituents voted for. We will not go backwards; we will only go forwards. This country needs change.

Tonia Antoniazzi 
I beg to move,

That this House has considered the legacy of Team GB’s performance at the Paris 2024 Olympics.

What a summer of sport we have been treated to! The Olympics, sadly, only come around every four years, but they leave us with enough to talk about until the next. Paris 2024 is no exception: a total of 327 Team GB athletes went to the games, winning 14 golds, 22 silvers and 29 bronzes, so Team GB secured 65 medals at Paris from 131 athletes over 18 different sports. Paris 2024 also saw Team GB’s 1,000th Olympic sporting medal: silver in the men’s cycling team pursuit.

The Olympics, however, are about more than medals. The spirit of the games is in every athlete who made it there and in everyone, like me, who was watching them on television. Behind the numbers, there are many stories to be told—stories of believing in oneself, overcoming adversity and working hard to achieve goals. We said an emotional farewell to Sir Andy Murray in his final tournament. We had Andy McDonald, aged 55, competing in the men’s park skateboarding. We watched Katarina Johnson-Thompson finally win an Olympic medal at her fourth games.

Such stories are reflected in everyday life. Most of us will not compete in the Olympics—present company included—but many of us need to persevere, believe in ourselves and work hard to achieve what we want. The success and stories of Team GB are to be celebrated but, for me, it is what happens next that I want to discuss more. Members might know that sport is one of my personal passions, and I feel strongly about getting people more involved in sport, whether competitively or just for pleasure.

Jim Shannon 
(Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Every one of us takes joy in sporting achievement and memories of it. Does she agree that homecoming events, such as that at Newtownards for GB gold-winner Jack McMillan and gold-medal pommel-horse winner Rhys McClenaghan—both from my constituency—are truly inspirational for children? The real legacy must be change in the mindset of our children, so that they understand that hard work and the drive to push on after failure can make the moment golden. We can reinforce that with additional funding for sports clubs for our children.

Tonia Antoniazzi 
I totally agree. It is lovely that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to celebrate those Northern Irish athletes at their homecoming. That is really magic and I look forward to the homecoming that the Paralympians will have as well. It is important that we have that funding. How do we find the next Kate Shortman and Izzy Thorpe? They are our first ever artistic swimming medallists, who trained in their local community pool. “Legacy” is a word that is thrown around an awful lot, and we are very familiar with its use around the Olympics. Legacy was a huge part of London 2012: a pledge to get 2 million people involved in sport and physical activity was at the heart of the bid. However, it is not enough to rely on major sporting events to drive up participation at the grassroots level. The sporting benefit promised by the London 2012 organisers sadly has not been fully realised. In 2022, a decade on from the games, only 13% of leaders across the sports sector agreed that the London 2012 Olympics had delivered the legacy promise—that was in a survey from the Sports Think Tank.

The biggest legacy failures were identified in the delivery of a sporting and physically active nation, and in inspiring a generation of young people to create a sporting habit for life. That is where I have an ask for the Minister. I have the passion and drive to work with the Minister and her Department in the new Government to make sport and activity something that we continue to do, from the time we can toddle around until we toddle off. I genuinely believe that that is what we need to do.

According to ukactive, 25.7% of people—11.9 million—in the UK still engage in less than 30 minutes of exercise a week. If we are going to create a legacy for future generations following on from the elite sporting events we saw this summer, we need a strategy and, importantly, we need infrastructure.

Jessica Morden
(Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this debate. She has an obvious passion for sport, which we all know about. The whole of the Team GB track cycling team trained at the Newport velodrome in the International Sports Village, including the world record breakers Emma Finucane, Sophie Capewell and Katy Marchant. The team return to our city time and again, and cite the Newport effect as part of their success. Does my hon. Friend agree as a Welsh MP that championing those kinds of facilities is massively important for us in Wales and across the UK in order to see that group of young people come through for the future?

Tonia Antoniazzi 
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is fantastic to see the velodrome in Newport in her constituency—it is a gem. In fact, if she does not mind, I would like to see one in Swansea.

I am pleased that UK Sport has taken the initiative of launching the changemakers fund, along with Team GB, Paralympics GB and the National Lottery. The aim of the fund is to get athletes into sports projects they are passionate about and to make a difference. Athletes can apply for funding towards projects that resonate with them. We saw that with the weightlifting bronze medallist Emily Campbell, who helped to launch the fund and said that she would be applying. She wants to use her platform to make a difference in her local community. We need to do more, and I will keep on saying so. I believe that we in Parliament should harness the buzz around Team GB going forward.

I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State commit to a review of the curriculum to put sport at its heart. Both sport and art are vital tools in allowing our young people to let off steam and express themselves. We all know that since Covid that is something we need to put more emphasis on. I have another opportunity to invite the Minister to speak with me and Brian Moore about a project around sport in the curriculum that he has been vocal about.

We all know the health benefits of regular physical activity, so it is important that it is intertwined with education in a way that does not put students off. Having been a teacher for 20 years, I know that they are easily put off if they think they have to do something they do not want to do. It is all about engaging them in the right sports and activities at the right time, and making them want to improve. That improvement will drive their enthusiasm to be more active.

Sport needs to be accessible within our communities. The Secretary of State has committed to that, and I look forward to seeing how, through planning sport and new build houses and towns, we can push it forward. Sadly, according to Sport England, the opportunities to get involved in sport and physical activity continue to depend on people’s background, sex, bank balance and postcode. According to ukactive, only 42% of children from less affluent families meet the chief medical officer’s activity guidelines, compared with 52% from more affluent backgrounds. Worryingly, just 45% of children in the most deprived areas can swim 25 metres, compared with 76% in wealthier regions.

Research shows time and again that girls and women over all age groups are less likely to participate in sport than their male counterparts. We need to address that urgently. I hope that we will commit to a strategy to inspire women and girls to be more active. Women in Sport has found that only 29% of girls dream of reaching the top in their sport, compared with 52% of boys. I want to inspire all those girls in the future to be the best that they can. People know that I played rugby for Wales, but I did not have that opportunity growing up. When people have a sport or activity that they love and can share with their friends, it contributes to their wellbeing, happiness and future health. This Government will embrace that.

Sport England’s Active Lives adult survey for 2022-23 found that those who identify as Black, Asian—excluding Chinese—Chinese or other were less likely to be active than those who identify as white British. We need to think about the statistics that are being produced. The facts repeat themselves time and again, and while there are root causes, which have been revealed, they are rarely acted on. I would like to ask the Minister what plans her Department has to review participation levels and take steps to address this imbalance, because there are more benefits to participation than just improving physical fitness.

This morning I came into Parliament having played tennis with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), which was a joy--

Adam Jogee
(Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Jim wants to play.

Jim Shannon 
I’m too old to play.

Tonia Antoniazzi 
Jim, I’ll drop you a text.

I had not picked up a tennis racket since I was a child, and the only reason I played tennis as a child was that it was the nearest place I could go to play sport. I could not play rugby or cricket, but the opportunity was there for me to play tennis—perhaps my parents wanted to get rid of me on a Saturday morning for 50p. Those opportunities are here now, and being active is key, whatever someone’s size or ability. It makes me come to work really happy every day. It is all about picking up a sport and having a community and sense of belonging through team sports—as well as making lifelong friendships and cross-party friendships, which we know in this House are very important.

I have spoken about my rugby career, and I still pick up my boots, gumshield and put my shorts on for the Wooden Spoon Welsh women’s veterans team and for the Commons and Lords rugby team, which plays an important part in the lives of parliamentarians, who do not often have the chance to be active. That is why it is still important to me at the ripe old age of nearly 53.

Sport England’s “Moving Communities” report found that 7 million participants at 563 leisure facilities in England in 2023-24 generated £891 million in wider social value, the most significant contribution being from the higher wellbeing derived by participants from engaging in sport and physical activity. The average total social value per participant is estimated to be £119 in 2023-24. There are other positives examples to learn from. The FA launched the Inspiring Positive Change strategy in 2020 to create a sustainable future for girls and women’s football in England. When the Lionesses won the Euros in 2022, 41% of secondary schools in England offered football to girls in PE lessons. It should be 100%, but that is brilliant. After the team campaigned tirelessly, the previous Government committed to equal access to all sports in schools, and by the end of 2023, 75% of schools had met this target, a year before the FA’s own target.

Inspiring Positive Change was a multi-layered scheme that covered grassroots through to professional football. It focused not only on the game but on wider structures such as coaching and refereeing. If a child in school feels that they love a sport, then they should have that opportunity . If they are not at the top, they feel that they cannot compete, but it is really important that they are part of the game. If we do not have coaches and referees, we are not on the pitch playing, so those people play an integral role. Getting children to understand that is the part of the process that we have to push forward. As a great example of how we can utilise good results to improve uptake while not relying on them, the structures were already in place when the Lionesses took the trophy, which is wonderful.

I prefer a different-shaped ball, which I have already spoken about, and 2025 sees the women’s rugby world cup hosted in England. I hope that being able to see that, and believe it, will help women and girls across the United Kingdom to see that they can pull on the jersey for their country and represent themselves.

Getting people more active is, as I have impressed on everybody, not something that one Department can fix, because the reasons why people do not participate are so varied. Furthermore, there are metaphorical hurdles in the way even when people want to take part. Facilities may be too far away, too expensive or in too poor a condition. Over the past few years we will all have seen in our constituencies rising energy prices, which have led to so many leisure centres and swimming pools either closing or changing their opening hours.

We are seeing a lack of uptake in sports, and if we are serious about getting people moving, Departments across Westminster need to engage. This involves the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury—the list goes on. We also need to work with devolved Governments, local authorities and community leaders, so will the Minister commit to a cross-Government approach to increasing participation in sport and physical activity and ensuring that, after Los Angeles 2028, we are in a much better place to discuss legacy?

I could talk all day—everybody knows that—but I want to end here and highlight the fact that 18 September is National Fitness Day. It is a great opportunity to grab the excitement from this summer and push it into long-term investment in sport and physical activity.

Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend is making an important and impressive speech, and I commend her for it. I agree with her that legacy is really important. The Paris Olympics have made me almost as proud as I was after London 2012—who could forget not just the brilliant sportsmen and women but Her late Majesty jumping out of the helicopter? In my view legacy has to be about our young people seeing themselves playing the sports and on the pitches. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dan Bigham, who won silver on the cycling track? He was born and raised in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and his success speaks to how we can maintain a legacy through our young people seeing those who did so well and following their lead.

Tonia Antoniazzi 
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is such a shame that we have only 30 minutes for the debate, because I think we could have filled this place and everybody could have spoken about how proud they are of their local Olympians and Paralympians—I am as well. Let us use National Fitness Day to see millions of people get involved, to highlight the role that physical activity plays across the UK, and to raise awareness of its importance in assisting us to lead healthier lifestyles.

We are being treated to a storming show from Paralympics GB. They are currently sitting in second place in the medal table. At the weekend, I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the national lottery operator Allwyn at the Paralympics. What an absolutely wonderful experience that was! If anyone is still not over the Olympics, I implore them to watch the Paralympics, because the coverage on Channel 4 is absolutely outstanding.

I have not touched on the legacy of Paralympics GB as the games are ongoing, so perhaps I will be back here soon to talk about grassroots disability sport. In the meantime, I pay tribute to Ben Pritchard from Mumbles, who won gold in the PR1 M1x rowing classification, and to Paul Karabardak, who took the bronze in the men’s doubles MD14 table tennis. I also wish good luck in the men’s discus throw F64 to another constituent, Harrison Walsh, whom I met a few weeks ago at the Principality stadium.

I feel very lucky to continue to feel the benefits of sport and physical activity. I do hope that in Scotland people will find a way to honour the legacy of Sir Andy Murray. I know there has been some disappointment around the planning arrangements there, so I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate his career and to celebrate the careers of all our Olympians and sportspeople. With a new Labour Government and a successful Olympic outing, I really hope that the whole country—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—will get the opportunity to feel the joy that I do and to celebrate their Olympians and Paralympians

On Tuesday 23rd July I led an adjournment debate relating to Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
​
You can read the transcript and watch my speech in full.

There have been huge advances in the battle for women’s equality in recent decades, but on some issues, we have gone backwards. Chief among them is commercial sexual exploitation. Giving someone money, accommodation, food, a job or other services on the condition that they perform sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse, yet the global trade in sexual exploitation—perpetrated primarily against women and girls—is bigger than ever before. Sex trafficking is the most profitable form of modern slavery in the world, while violent, misogynistic pornography is consumed on an unparalleled scale, mostly by men. This was not an accident, and it was not inevitable: we could and should have done so much more to protect women and girls. Instead, the past 14 years have been a veritable golden age for pimps and pornographers.

Intervention from Carolyn Harris MP:

Does my hon. Friend agree that under the United Nations protocol on trafficking, a victim does not need to have travelled in a vehicle in order for a trafficking offence to have been committed, yet under the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, they do? This means that exploiters who are not actually moving a victim in a vehicle from one place to another are not being prosecuted as traffickers. It would make a huge difference if there were parity between the two pieces of legislation, to make sure that trafficking is justly prosecuted.

Tonia Antoniazzi MP resumes:

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that the Minister is listening and will likely agree with her, as I do. Multimillion-pound pimping websites have been allowed to operate freely. Men who drive demand for sex trafficking by paying for sex have been left to abuse with impunity, while the most popular pornography websites in the country have been free to peddle videos of rape and sexual abuse.

Intervention from Jim Shannon MP:

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. She was active on this subject when she was on the Opposition Benches, and I commend her for that. To be fair, so was the Minister in her place tonight, so I am quite sure that, whatever we ask for, the Minister will respond in a very positive fashion, and I am glad about that.

Does the hon. Lady not agree that we must be at pains to ensure that the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is not used as a trafficking channel? Would she join me in asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to meet the relevant Republic of Ireland Minister to discuss and agree how we can collectively ensure that this is not a back door to abuse and misuse?

Tonia Antoniazzi MP resumes:

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, because, having been a shadow Minister for Northern Ireland and from working with Women’s Aid in Northern Ireland, I know that this is a real problem. I welcome his offer to join him in meeting the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister to discuss this further, and I thank him very much for his intervention.

The previous Government stood by and let this happen, which was a shocking abdication of duty. Women and girls deserve so much better from the Government. I am looking forward to seeing this new Government stepping up and protecting women and girls from commercial sexual exploitation, and in this debate I will set out how.

First of all, let us be clear: prostitution is violence against women. Men who pay for sex are not regular consumers harmlessly availing “workers” of their services. Healthy, non-abusive sexual relationships require both parties to mutually and freely want to have sex. Offering somebody money, or food or a place to stay, in return for their performing sex acts is sexual coercion. It is simply not possible to commodify sexual consent. As the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has stated,

“prostitution is intrinsically linked to different forms of violence against women and girls and constitutes a form of violence in and of itself.”

Most women exploited in prostitution were highly vulnerable before even entering the sex trade, and suffer severe consequences as a result. A Home Office report noted that approximately 50% of women in prostitution in the United Kingdom started being paid for sex acts before they were 18 years old, while up to 95% of women in street prostitution are believed to be problematic drug users. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) have met these women and seen the struggles that they have in Swansea city centre, and I know that they are there to fuel their drug use. They are pimped out, and it is heartbreaking.

This is how I use my politics: when I think about the most vulnerable people in society, I think about the women who were crying because they have had their children taken away from them permanently. They were not able to make ends meet, and they had to be taken out by their pimp to earn in order to feed themselves and to live their lives in a basic way. I really do believe that we should always think about those women when we talk about women in this House.

I want to read the words of Crystal, a survivor who has spoken out about her experience of prostitution. She said:

“I became involved in prostitution in my early twenties, courtesy of my then ‘boyfriend’; I now use the word pimp. My body always hurt from the constant rough sex. I’d get jaw ache from blow-job after blow-job. Group stuff was especially harrowing…I developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I got flashbacks and nightmares, when I could sleep. The addiction and the prostitution went together—I sold myself to fund my habit, and I couldn’t do it sober. It was a vicious cycle.”

Too often in discussions about prostitution and sex trafficking, there is silence when it comes to the people who perpetrate this kind of abuse: men who pay for sex. So it is only right that I also read their words today. Here is what one man wrote in a forum for sex buyers about a woman he paid £100 to perform sex acts on him:

“This is a classic case of ‘the pretty ones don’t have to work hard’...She’s Polish, and her English is not good...I was reminded of The Smiths’ song ‘Girlfriend in a Coma’...All the while she seemed completely disinterested and mechanical...I finally decided to fuck her, in mish...All the while, she kept her face turned to one side.”

I apologise for the language, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As one of her first acts in government, I urge the Minister to recognise the violence that women such as Crystal endure and the harmful actions of sex buyers by adding prostitution to the Government’s tackling violence against women and girls strategy, just as the Scottish Government have done.

So what do we know about sex buyers? We know that 3.6% of men in the UK report having paid for sex in the previous five years, and we know that the level of demand for prostitution varies over time and place. That is because men who pay to sexually exploit women are not helplessly reacting to uncontrollable sexual urges; they are making a choice, and that choice is influenced by a range of factors, including the risk of criminal sanction.

Importantly, we also know that the harm perpetrated when a man pays for sex is not restricted to the individual woman he exploits. As the Home Affairs Committee concluded last year, sex buyers “fuel demand for trafficking”. The cohort of men who create demand for the prostitution trade is the same cohort that creates the demand driving the trafficking of women into that trade. So we have a group of men perpetrating a type of violence against women that financially incentivises further violence against women. That should prompt a robust legal response from Government that holds sex buyers accountable for the severity of their actions.

But that is not the legal response we have. In England and Wales there is a loose patchwork of laws relating to prostitution, with no consistent objective underpinning them. Third-party facilitation of prostitution is illegal in some circumstances yet permitted in others. Victims of sexual exploitation face criminal sanction for soliciting in a public place, while individuals who pay for sex face criminal sanctions only if they kerb-crawl or pay for sex with an individual “subjected to force”. Even then, the law is very rarely enforced.

The consequences of this legal fudge are all around us, hidden in plain sight. Across the country, vulnerable women are being advertised online and moved around networks of so-called pop-up brothels. Organised crime groups dominate this ruthless trade, exploiting predominantly non UK-national women.

Let me give a snapshot of what is happening. Over a 12-month period, Leicestershire police visited 156 brothels, encountering 421 women, of whom 86% were Romanian. In Bristol, the Police Foundation identified 65 brothels over a two-year period. Over three quarters of the brothels displayed links to organised crime groups, and 83% of the women in them were non-British nationals. In city after city, women are being trafficked and exploited, and for one overriding reason: there are men willing and able to pay to abuse them. This has to stop. It is just unbearable.

Mia de Faoite, a survivor of prostitution who now trains the police on how to combat commercial sexual exploitation, points to how we should do this. She says:

“Prostitution is what most people imagine it to be: violent and dangerous. In the six years that I was involved, I endured a gang rape and three separate rapes…The only countries in Europe who are making a substantial impact in the fight against modern day slavery are the ones who have acknowledged and faced the cause: the demand.”

Mia is right, and I urge the Minister to listen to her.

A growing number of countries and states are waking up to the fact that without demand from sex buyers, there would be no supply of women into prostitution and sex trafficking. By criminalising paying for sex and decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation, the Governments of Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway and Canada have shifted the burden of criminality off victims and on to perpetrators. England and Wales must be the next countries added to that list.

Sweden was the first nation to adopt demand reduction legislation in 1999, affording us more than two decades of evidence. The results are stark: demand has dropped, public attitudes have transformed and traffickers are being deterred. The most recent research found that 7.5% of men in Sweden had paid for sex. Just 0.8% of them had paid for sex in the previous 12 months—the smallest proportion recorded in two decades and the lowest level in Europe.

I have seen at first hand how agencies collaborate to implement Sweden’s sex purchase Act, having met police and support workers there tasked with holding sex buyers accountable and assisting victims. Co-ordinated multi-agency working, backed up by strong political leadership, have been key to translating the legislation into real change on the ground.

Those who want to preserve the right of men to pay for sex have claimed that outlawing this abusive practice would simply drive the prostitution trade underground, making it harder to identify victims. However, as a study commissioned by the European Commission concluded, there is a logical fallacy at the heart of that argument. Sex buying is largely opportunistic and relies on advertising. Sex buyers have got to be able to find women to sexually exploit, and the police can look at exactly the same adverts that they do. If sex buyers can find women being exploited, so can the police.

Solely going after sex buyers is not sufficient to stop sex trafficking, however. We also have to crack down on the pimping websites that enable and profit from this abhorrent trade. Pimping websites are commercial online platforms dedicated solely or partly to advertising women for prostitution. They function like mass online brothels, making it as easy to order a woman to exploit as it is to order a takeaway. Despite it being illegal to place a prostitution advert in a phone box, the same advert can be legally published for profit on a website. Our laws have not kept pace with technological change, and pimps have got rich as a result. As the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation found in its inquiry into pimping websites, a small number of highly lucrative websites dominates the market, centralising and concentrating demand online. The sites make it simple and fast for traffickers to advertise their victims and connect with their so-called customer base in towns and cities across the UK.

Shamefully, the previous Government not only failed to stop pimping websites from operating, but collaborated with them. Since 2018, Home Office officials have met 20 times with Vivastreet, one of the biggest websites advertising prostitution. What has been the result of that collaboration with mass prostitution rings? The Home Affairs Committee’s conclusion was:

“The threat posed by websites advertising prostitution, the continuing failure of their owners to implement even the most basic safeguards against pimping and trafficking, and the sheer scale of trafficking for sexual exploitation they facilitate, is at total odds with the National Crime Agency and Home Office’s decision to collaborate with them. We found this public partnership working inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites—and the flagrant facilitation of trafficking enabled by, for instance, single individuals being allowed to advertise multiple women for prostitution.”

The Home Affairs Committee, the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation and the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation have been united in their conclusion that in order to bust the business model of sex trafficking we have to drag our anti-pimping laws into the 21st century by making it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, whether that takes place online or offline. Hand in hand with that anti-pimping law, we need a cross-Government strategy to help survivors exit sexual exploitation and rebuild their lives. That is because in order to stop sexual exploitation, we have to end impunity for pimps and punters, and provide support—not sanctions—for victims.

I turn to pornography and the action that we need to finally start tackling the rampant commercial sexual exploitation on pornography websites, as well as their wider harms. A groundbreaking inquiry into the pornography trade by the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation concluded that we cannot simply end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls without confronting the role that pornography plays in fuelling sexual objectification and sexual violence. The fact that Government have hitherto failed to tackle even the most egregious abuses perpetrated by this predatory industry is not because that has proved too difficult, but because there has not been sufficient political will. That has to change now.

The findings of the group’s inquiry were extensive and unequivocal. I urge the Minister to study them carefully. I will highlight just a few. First, pornography consumption fuels sexual violence. There is extensive evidence from experimental, non-experimental, longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of that. Research indicates that pornography influences viewers’ so-called sexual scripts, shaping their understanding, expectations and decisions in relation to sexual behaviour. Pornography also serves to dehumanise and sexually objectify women, fostering attitudes that underpin violence against women and girls.

Secondly, illegal content is freely accessible on mainstream pornography websites. Lawlessness characterises the online pornography trade, with films featuring child sexual abuse, rape and trafficking victims found on some of the UK’s most heavily visited sites. Thirdly, the inquiry concluded that sexual coercion is inherent in the commercial production of pornography. I will quote the words of Alia Dewees, a survivor of pornography and trafficking who now works to support other survivors. Alia was just 20 when she was first paid to perform in pornography. Giving evidence to the all-party group, she recalled,

“when I did not want to consent, when I was feeling uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwilling, I did not have the freedom to leave that shoot without repercussions. I didn’t have the freedom to leave and know that I wasn’t going to be sued for breach of contract.”

Alia experienced that immense pressure to participate in filmed sex acts because on a previous date she had signed a legal contract to do so. That is commercial sexual exploitation. Like too many other women, she was subjected to a horrifying level of sexual abuse in this so-called industry. She bravely spoke out.

There are simple, practical steps that Ministers can take now to rein in the lawless activities of pornography sites and implement basic safeguards. Such measures should include making the regulation of pornography consistent across the online and offline spheres, as recommended by the British Board of Film Classification, and requiring online platforms accessed from the UK to verify that every individual featured in pornographic content on their sites is an adult and gave permission for the content to be published there. Safeguards must include giving individuals who feature in pornographic material accessed from the UK the legal right to withdraw their consent to material in which they feature being published or distributed further. We have the power to make that burden a little lighter by giving individuals who feature on pornography websites the legal right to have that content taken down.

I would like to pay tribute to the Ministers on the Front Bench. Labour voted in support of the amendment tabled by the now Minister of State at the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), but it was blocked by the Conservative Government. Now that Labour is in power, I hope that we will see vital safeguards in a Government Bill soon. In opposition, Labour could only use words in the fight against commercial sexual exploitation. Now we can use deeds. This Government must shift power out of the hands of punters, pimps and pornographers, and place it into the hands of women and girls.