Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, much that is valuable and important has been said by many in this Chamber this afternoon, particularly about the risks of criminal law creeping too far into the conduct of everyday life—the law should not be a code of conduct—and the problems of unenforceability when law becomes overcomplex. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made an important suggestion, which I hope is debated in Committee.

I will speak to Clause 191, which has profound implications for the lives of some children. Those in favour in the Commons spoke of a recent increase in investigations and prosecution. They spoke of women abused and pressured into abortions, and of unreasonable behaviour by the police and the CPS. They used harrowing cases to make their arguments. A number argued that abortion should be considered only as a healthcare matter. But it is not hard to unpick these arguments, and to see on what shaky foundations this decision was taken.

It is blindingly clear that abortion is a profoundly difficult issue, because the rights attaching to two different lives conflict: this is why it figures in criminal law. I do not stand with those who argue for absolute priorities in either direction, but I have worked for years in areas where adults and children’s rights unavoidably conflict. I know how easy it is for campaigners to be blinded by such conflict of rights by their perceptions of their own rightness. This is how some can see giving women an unqualified right to kill their own children—even the day before birth—as merely a progressive modernisation of the law.

For abortion, there is an uncomfortable asymmetry: unlike their mothers, unborn children are helpless and voiceless. We should therefore reject the argument that abortion should be considered purely as a healthcare matter. Of course women’s healthcare matters, but to make healthcare the only consideration is to deny a vast and important ethical debate. Both lives in question matter very much. Clinicians and support services naturally want to be kind to the woman in front of them, to whom they owe responsibilities, and of course it is easier for professionals if the law removes any possibility of repercussions for them from a self-induced late abortion.

Furthermore, decriminalisation, even in the interests of kindness, is not always a social good. To give one example, Oregon has had to reverse its disastrous policy of decriminalising low-level drug possession and usage.

Next, if there are cases of police or CPS overreach or malpractice, primary legislation is not the right way to correct that. It is shocking when someone proves to have been wrongly convicted, but do a few cases of wrongful conviction justify decriminalising rape, for example, lest any man ever be unfairly accused and investigated?

Finally, Parliament should not succumb to emotional blackmail. The old saying is that hard cases make bad law. Domestic violence charities see dreadful cases, and abused women deserve kindness and consideration, but not all women are angels without agency. There are women who are not abused, but who neglect and maltreat their own children—ask any social worker. There is clear moral hazard here. For example, a woman who forms a new relationship mid-pregnancy may be tempted to eliminate the baby that she thinks could be an impediment to that relationship. As far as I know, despite the red flag of increased investigations in recent years, no systematic review has looked at whether telemedicine for abortion is having an undesirable consequence of enabling greater numbers of women to conceal their stage of pregnancy so as to attempt late abortions.

For all these reasons, I believe that noble Lords should be concerned about this clause, the fact that it was inserted without any national consultation showing a clear balance of public opinion in support, and that it was not informed by a full review of the impact of permitting abortions by telemedicine. I will therefore be proposing amendments to delay its implementation until such a review and consultation have taken place.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 456 and 460. I have been saddened by the lack of appreciation of the protective role that the criminal law brings, and I appreciated the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. But it is important to consider some of the cases that have resulted in convictions and have not been controversial.

Sarah Catt, as reported by the BBC on 17 September 2012, aborted her baby at 39 weeks. She was prosecuted and sentenced for eight years; the body was never found—she disposed of it. The authorities realised because she had been for certain hospital appointments and no birth was registered; they went and investigated, and she said that she had had a legitimate abortion. It turned out that, when they searched her computer, because it was 2012, she had got pills from Mumbai and took those pills, and her husband knew nothing of what was happening. It is important to note that she was sentenced for eight years, and that is important particularly in relation to the amendments that seek to retrospectively pardon people. How will those connected to that lady, grandparents and potentially her husband, feel if that was no longer an offence because it was not controversial at the time? That is what we are dealing with here, that it would no longer be a crime at 39 weeks.

Having listened through many hours of debate now, I am unsure about the clarity and process of the law here. We have seen much suggestion that the pills by post are causing more investigations and heard about the nature of those investigations, but we need more detail and more evidence to legislate properly. Many noble Lords have tried to predict, “Women’s behaviour will do this” or “Women’s behaviour will do that” or “Things on the street”, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said, “will be different”. But we do not know that because we have not had that really important pre-legislative process.

We have also had evidence that there is, in fact, sex-selective abortion going on, and we have had no equality impact assessment. I think that is a big flaw if we legislate on this. However, we do know from evidence in New Zealand that there could be an increase in late-term abortions, and we know that there have been more emergency calls as a result of more complications when the pills are taken after the 10-week window.

One point that has not been covered is that, obviously, the ambulance crew are often the first people through the door, so I would be grateful if the Minister could actually give some clarity and restate what the law is for those emergency providers faced with that situation. Concepts like birth, born alive and the first breath are not that easy to apply in this scenario. If you look at the Medical Law Review, there is a very interesting article by Elizabeth Romanis, in the winter 2020 edition, looking at advances in medical technology which mean that you can now operate on a foetus and there is a potential for having artificial wombs so this legal personality at the first breath might not be so easy to apply. Do the ambulance crew need to use all of their professional skills to ensure that that baby is born alive or not?

Also, the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, in Article 45, is very strict, unless it is a matter urgency or necessity, to ensure that people who are not medically qualified do not intervene in the birth of a baby; it is actually a criminal offence to do that. So I think we need to know from the Minister the boundary there as well, if there might be people with the woman as she is taking the pills in a late-stage abortion.

Finally, many noble Lords have said that this only had 46 minutes of Back-Bench time in the other place. I have pondered whether there is an opposite to the word “filibuster”, because I think it applies to this particular situation. It is a sadness now, I think, when one looks at Parliament’s granting of conscience issues to MPs and Peers, that somehow we have ended up in the position where these issues have lacked the pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation that are vital to ensure that we pass good laws. I do not think this one is fit, at the moment, without the involvement of the public in consultation, a White Paper, et cetera.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, the debates today are of tremendous importance and, I think, of comparable difficulty to the painful debate about assisted dying, though that other Bill has rather overshadowed this clause. However, I think, in effect, that what we are talking about here does have some of the characteristics of a Trojan horse. It is a bit like a Private Member’s Bill hidden inside a government Bill. We have got just one day to consider the clause and to try to put some sensible restrictions and safeguards on what is clearly a risky proposal. I think the comments of many noble Lords have shown this.

I spent seven years responsible for Ofsted’s inspections of social services for children, and I saw a lot of the very worst of what parents, both male and female, will do to their children. On the Bill on that subject, debates have often been dominated by justified concerns for children’s welfare and safety, yet this clause goes the other way in explicitly legitimising the ultimate harm of killing a viable child if it is done by the mother, even where there is clear dishonesty or other wrongdoing by the mother and no mitigating circumstances whatever. I am not sure that that is a position that the majority of the public will ever see as progressive, inevitable or the way that the country should go.

It is, as various people have pointed out, a de facto removal of the term limit on abortion. With telemedicine coupled with self-declaration, what we have is something that is, I believe, really quite significantly unsafe. We simply do not have either the data or the monitoring systems to have the level of confidence that we should. By the way, I think we know that self-declaration and trust is not working as well as had been hoped in quite a number of Covid-era programmes where decisions are made remotely off the back of self-declaration. Some of the country’s woes come down to needing to find the political courage to say so and deal with that.