Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. I was talking about the decriminalisation of women. Those are the jurisdictions which never prosecute a woman for ending her own pregnancy. I acknowledge, as I did previously, that gestational limits differ and whether medical professionals are included in decriminalisation varies, but in over 50 states, including all the United States, even those with the strictest abortion law, no woman is ever prosecuted for ending her pregnancy. That is important to acknowledge when people say that this is a huge change which is going to impact behaviour. Our law dates from 1967 and lots of people who made abortion legal after that never criminalise women.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for setting out the context behind this debate, which takes place against a backdrop in this country of large-scale funding by anti-abortion groups across the piece and almost daily articles in our newspapers about anti-abortion. That is one of the reasons why we have seen an increase in women being arrested. Noble Lords were very careful in the statistics they selected. Some chose to talk about 2018-22. It is undeniable that in the last three or four years there has been a huge increase in the number of women being investigated.

There are three groups of people in your Lordships’ House. There are those who are fundamentally opposed to abortion, and we have heard from many of them today speaking to many of the amendments. There are those who, like me in speaking to my Amendment 459C, support a woman’s right to make informed choices and who, for the last 10 years, have followed this debate about decriminalisation. To those who say that this was brought in as a measure by the back door, suddenly sprung on the House of Commons, that is wrong. For 10 years we have been discussing decriminalisation. Dame Diana Johnson brought Bills before another place. We have had a great deal of discussion about it at different stages. Then there is a third group: the people who have doubts. The speeches of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, typified some of them. They are the people who I want to talk to today, because they have some concern that this is not right.

In my preparation for today’s debate, which I have been thinking about for several weeks, I thought about a parallel and I went to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, went to, so I am sorry he is not in his place. I went to the fact that in 1961—a very good year in my opinion—this House debated the decriminalisation of suicide. I went, with the assistance of the Library, to look through the Hansard reports of that debate and the parallels are striking. At the point when it came into Parliament, what was the first criticism? That this had been sprung on us and was too big an issue to be brought in in this way. Yet there had been 10 years of debate prior to that by people who thought this was not the right way to deal with this issue. People in the Church had great debates about it. I suggest noble Lords read those Hansard reports, because the debates both here and in the House of Commons are profound. They are succinct, which is perhaps something we should relearn, because it is quite clear that there is no correlation between length of debate and quality of debate. These were people who were profoundly concerned about a moral issue and about what signal Parliament would be giving out were it to take this very grave step.

I will quote just one speech that took place not in the House of Lords but in the House of Commons. At Third Reading, the Conservative Minister Charles Fletcher-Cooke said:

“Because we have taken the view, as Parliament and the Government have taken, that the treatment of people who attempt to commit suicide should no longer be through the criminal courts, it in no way lessens, nor should it lessen, the respect for the sanctity of human life which we all share. It must not be thought that because we are changing the method of treatment for those unfortunate people we seek to depreciate the gravity of the action of anyone who tries to commit suicide”.


I suggest that there is a very strong and clear parallel with our debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there are two evils here, and we have to decide between them.

Charles Fletcher-Cooke went on:

“One of the consequences of removing from the ambit of the criminal law this hitherto crime of attempted suicide is that it may be feared that some people may not be reached through the Mental Health Act; that there will be some who will not submit themselves to voluntary treatment, and cannot be persuaded by then medical advisers or members of their family to receive treatment. It may be apprehended that some gap in the welfare of the country may follow from that”.


He then said:

“We would all agree that it would be quite wrong either to keep the present criminal structure or to impose a new one purely for what we believe to be a very small minority. But we shall watch the situation and the Government will keep an open mind. We will see whether that small number increases and if a proposal not involving the odour of criminality is put forward to meet the situation, we shall certainly look at it again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/7/61; cols. 822-23.]


Two noble Lords talked about deterrence. Behind our deliberations today has been a fear that, if we cease to treat these women under the criminal justice system, we are somehow saying that what they do is less grave. I do not agree with that. I hope that, if I had taken part in that debate in 1961, I would have understood the point that they were making then, which is the same as the one we are making now: if somebody is so desperate that they would do this, they will not be in the right place if they end up in the criminal justice system. This is a medical issue.

In all the speeches we have heard today from noble Lords trying to chip away at telemedicine, the one thing that they have not dealt with is the point made to us by the people who see these desperate women: if we do anything to stop them being in contact with the medical profession, we put them in danger, and we will never get them out. In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I wondered whether police officers find themselves in other situations where someone has done something illegal that might have had a profound effect on their health. Is the first thing that comes into the police officer’s mind that the person should go to the criminal justice system, rather than making sure that they are medically safe? That is what we are doing throughout this debate: we are treating these women as being exceptional.

We should do what we have been doing for the past 10 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right that Clause 191 could be far more radical than it is. It is not radical; it is a very small adjustment to say that, if women are that desperate, they deserve medical treatment. All the amendments that have been debated today are just barriers in the way of that happening. I hope that people in this House, just as has been done at the other end, will realise that we are back to the same dilemma we had in 1961 and that we should do the right thing by desperate people.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a full, difficult and passionate debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I know that issues of conscience such as this arouse very strong feelings, but I am pleased that we have managed to keep the debate respectful, as we always do in your Lordships’ House.

At the outset, I recognise that there are two aspects to this debate that we must firmly and definitively distinguish. The first is a matter of substance and the second is a matter of procedure. More specifically, the first is about the merits of the substance of Clause 191 and the second is about the process by which it became part of a government Bill.

On the first matter, that is an issue of conscience, and on this the Opposition do not and will not take an official position. I acknowledge that there is a multitude of views across the Committee, and indeed within my own party. That diversity of opinion is to be expected and welcome, but this is and always has been a matter of personal conscience.

However, the second matter is very different. Regardless of one’s views on the rights or wrongs of decriminalisation, the process by which Clause 191 was inserted into the Bill was, on any view, insufficient and, as a matter of procedure, deficient. The amendment was proposed on Report in the other place by Tonia Antoniazzi MP. It was not discussed in the Public Bill Committee or a Select Committee. As others have said this evening, it received 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Many Members in the other place were limited to less than five minutes of speaking time. On such an issue of profound social change, in no way can that be described as a full and proper debate—compare that to the vigorous debate we have had today.

Because this was an amendment to legislation brought in on Report and not part of the Bill as introduced or as amended in Committee, and because it was not government policy, this proposal has not undergone any of the usual stages of policy formation. As your Lordships will well know, where a major change to the law is proposed, the Government would normally publish a White Paper or Green Paper, commission an expert panel or review, gather evidence, conduct a public consultation, and publish an impact assessment and relevant supporting documents. The policy proposal would then be published as part of the Bill. It would be subject to detailed scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee, where witnesses would be invited to give evidence. None of these steps has been taken. Whatever one’s views on the merits of Clause 191, that is not a recipe for good law.

Let us just pause and reflect on the wide variety of issues that have arisen today—the amendments themselves cover a lot of ground. We have discussed issues of police procedure and investigation, a panoply of medical issues, and issues around potential coercion, telemedicine, prosecution policy and the vulnerability of women. There is a multitude of difficult and intricate issues to cover.

It is interesting that, when Parliament considered the Abortion Bill in 1967, the abolition of the death penalty and, more recently, the legalisation of gay marriage, all were introduced as separate Bills that underwent the full process of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, your Lordships Committee is currently considering another piece of social legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Despite being a Private Member’s Bill, that Bill has been subject to a rather more robust process and more significant scrutiny than this clause before us today. Of course, that is absolutely right; these are matters that, if we get them wrong, could have severe and perverse consequences. Again, whether or not noble Lords support Clause 191, the Committee is being asked to pass judgment on a provision to alter fundamentally the legal status of abortion, for right or wrong, without the possession of all the necessary evidence.

Indeed, during the debate on the clause in the other place, when discussing wider abortion law reforms, Tonia Antoniazzi, who as we know proposed Clause 191, said:

“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 305.]


I agree that these are changes of magnitude. A separate and distinct Bill would be a better way forward. Comprehensive reforms of legislation on social matters should have considerable collaboration between all relevant stakeholders. That has not happened with Clause 191. It is fair to say that, whatever one’s views on the moral element of the change, Clause 191 is so far-reaching, consequential and of such magnitude that it is questionable whether it is appropriate for it to be bolted on to the side of a crime and policing Bill.

Finally, I turn to the approach of the Government to Clause 191. Ultimately, this is now a clause in a government Bill. The Government may or may not have wanted it in the Bill, but, regardless of their neutrality, this clause is now in their Bill. If the Bill passes with Clause 191 remaining, it will be the Government’s job to implement it. It will unequivocally be government legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We live in what a lot of us would describe as a post-truth world, in which facts are often passed off as opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase “fake news”. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that comes not simply from conspiracy theorists on the internet but, sadly, sometimes from world leaders.

Given that context, it is important that when this House resolves on any legislation, looking into the future, that it should be on the basis of evidence, truth and facts. That is particularly true when it comes to abortion. It is an issue, irrespective of your views on it, which is deeply sensitive, and on which raw emotions are often provoked. To some extent we saw that earlier when, at times, the atmosphere of the Committee got a little bit tense. People have genuinely conflicting views on this, so the more we can try to base this on evidence, the better.

That is particularly true for the proposed changes that are being made in Clause 191, for two main reasons. First, although there has been some mention that this has been in the ether for a number of years, the specifics of this legislation came about by way of a Back-Bench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate on it. It was not part of a government programme or manifesto commitment. Any Back-Bench Member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment; that is the normal procedure. The downside of that is that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal.

Secondly, despite what has been said, there are some concerns about the quality of the data that we have on a range of issues. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You can either make the argument that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary, or, alternatively, you can make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. It strikes me that when we take decisions on this, it is important to get the data.

It has been highlighted—I think it was mentioned in a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposed—that there are sometimes concerns over the quality of the data. Perhaps not unsurprisingly—it is not unique to this particular debate—we have heard different people on different sides of this argument quote sometimes contradictory data as to where we are.

It strikes me that there are one or two solutions to these problems, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in the next group of amendments, proposes, apart from anything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period. These amendments then look towards the idea of producing data and a report, and gathering evidence so that there can be a review of the procedures and how things work out. They highlight the range of issues that formed a number of the concerns in the previous debate. These are issues around the level of coercion, the medical complications that arise as a result of changes, whether it leads to a driver on sex selection, and, as mentioned, the incidence of late abortion, which then leads to a live birth. This range of issues highlights a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.

I appreciate that we have had this debate today, and that the proponents of Clause 191 will say that the concerns that have been raised—although I am sure they will accept they are genuine—are, in their view, misplaced or perhaps exaggerated, and that we have nothing to fear from Clause 191. Various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been quoted. It is important, therefore, that we test that out. These amendments would gather that data and allow us to assess that. If we are dealing with false fears then, for the proponents of Clause 191, this will strengthen their argument in a year or two years’ time, whenever these things are reviewed. If the fears are genuine and are realised, however, then it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says, that if we gather evidence, it is not some sort of desktop exercise where we simply look at figures. If we gather evidence then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity, if it shows that there are increased dangers, for instance, to women or concerns over any other categories, to take a level of corrective action. That seems a very sensible course of action. I do not think there is anything that anybody should have to fear in these amendments, so I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and what he said sounds eminently sensible, but the problem is this: the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has set out the level of detail that is already gathered. The noble Lord, among other Members of your Lordships’ House, have gone on all day about telemedicine and coercion, yet when the royal colleges set up the evaluation of telemedicine, when it came in during Covid, they took particular care to examine issues such as that. They came up with data that showed that telemedicine was safe. Actually, it not only discovered women who were being coerced; it discovered women who were being trafficked. Yet Members of your Lordships’ House still trot out the same argument time and again. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and I am afraid I rather think that it does not matter what data we collect: they will make the same arguments over and again.

My noble friend Lady Brinton cannot be here this evening, but she particularly wanted to say this: the detail of these amendments is designed to confuse and delay the safe and effective legal rules of abortion. They would also take abortion out of the clinical sphere, trying to exceptionalise it and create an environment so hostile that it would deter women and, equally important, clinicians and medical staff, as the rules become more and more complex; and it would also be at the whim of the Secretary of State to amend details or to report at various times. It is a worrying idea to use secondary legislation to make everything more complex, because it gives Ministers the powers to change things and causes confusion and distress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I have listened to what has been said. Initially, I was not quite clear whether it was an intervention or not, but I appreciate that it is actually a speech. I think comparisons with America are somewhat facile, because if we were gathering data, it would be on an NHS-wide basis in that regard. The idea of anybody, as you would have in the United States—where an individual county will take a particular view—imposing different decisions or requiring different things is not something that could happen in this country. By all means, criticise the amendments and try to take them apart, but let us not make false comparisons based upon the very different federal system they have in the United States compared with what happens here.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I do not think that it is a false comparison. What we are saying is that, instead of having a system that is democratically decided openly and in Parliament, we will leave it to regulation and officials. I think that is wrong.

The other thing that my noble friend Lady Brinton wanted to say relates to proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment 457. Imagine a woman who is, in the words of the amendment,

“acting in relation to their own pregnancy”,

having to identify and report medical complications. What does that mean? I do not think that that is intended to make it any easier for a woman in need to access the care she needs. I think it is intended to frustrate and, therefore, I hope that these amendments will not be passed.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I fail to understand the logic of both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in setting their face against collecting more data. The fact is, we are not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and accuracy of any of this data. To give an example, the Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued “Making Abortion Safe” guidelines to providers for the safe use of medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of feticide to avoid the foetus being born with signs of life, which can cause distress for women and their care providers. In the same guidelines, the RCOG states that there will be a

“need for further intervention to complete the procedure”

in 13% of cases. That is more than twice the highest rate reported by the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I think my case has been made. These are a set of amendments which are designed to be unworkable. They are wrecking amendments, and I hope that we will not pass them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The thing about Amendment 461C, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, is that quite a lot of this data is collected. Clearly, it was late this year, and there would be no point in doing a JR on the basis of that.

I understand that not every abortion happens at the point at which the sex of the foetus is known, but that data would be worth collecting, given the concerns that exist about gender or sex-selective abortion. It might be worth the ONS adding the question to the questionnaire or HSA4 form in the future.

Last year, the collection rate on ethnicity was 92%, but it would be useful to understand what further work the ONS might be doing to try to get that up to 100%.