Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Bousted Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am just wondering if the Committee would allow me to speak at my extreme age. I have put my name to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I do not propose to repeat anything he has said. But there are two aspects I will speak about, particularly those raised by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Pannick.

First, in what they are both saying, we are looking at women who are not guilty of any offence. We are being asked to pass a law to protect offenders for the sake of people who are not offenders. Speaking as a former lawyer, I find that an extraordinary proposal. I absolutely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is saying, about the difficulty of balancing. But he is talking about the innocent. We are being asked to pass a law that would actually protect the guilty for the sake of the innocent. It is the first time anyone has pointed this out, and I find it rather extraordinary. We are being asked to look at women who have suffered a stillbirth or an abortion not at their request but because it has happened at a very late stage, who are now being investigated by the police. I gather the whole thing has gathered momentum after pills were being sent by post. Prior to that, the police did not investigate a lot of cases, but because of the pills being sent by post, the police are now investigating to a greater extent.

Particularly in relation to those who are suffering domestic abuse—this relates to the amendment the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I have put forward—it looks to me as though we are being asked to change the law because the police are taking a year to investigate, treating women extremely badly in the process. But surely, we should be looking at the guidance to the police. I am very relieved to hear the right reverend Prelate is going to get Lincolnshire Police to have a look at this. We should find out why the police are not looking at potential abusers or investigating the partner as well as the woman. We are being told again and again that the partners are not being investigated but the woman is being investigated. It is taking a year or longer—in some appalling cases, six years. But that is the failure of the police. We know they are overstretched, but it is an appalling failure, particularly if they do not investigate.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Would the noble and learned Baroness, with her outstanding history in the law, recognise that women and men are not treated equally in the criminal justice system, nor in police investigations; that it is the case that women, when they are convicted of an offence, are often sent to prison for offences for which men are not sent to prison; that women are sent to prison for longer than men for the same offences; that there are many women in prison for things that men would not be put in prison for; and that exactly the same is the case in investigations? We have to ask the question: why did it take six years, why are the police not—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

We have to ask the question of why there are these inequities. Other noble Lords have made longer interventions; I do not know why I am being barracked in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

In light of this confusion, my amendment would explicitly ensure that women could not induce the abortion of babies capable of being born alive—in other words, after the 24-week limit, which would effectively be made redundant by Clause 191—for reasons of their sex, should Clause 191 become law. Without this clarification—

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness how criminalisation of the mother would provide any protection against abortions on sex-selective grounds. That is the argument she is making, it appears to me. How would criminalisation stop this?

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

The criminalisation is known by both the partner and the mother, and it gives the woman a reason to say that this is a dangerous process that easily could lead to one or both of them being accused of an illegal act.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Can I say further—

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

The noble Baroness has had one intervention, and only one is allowed.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Well, that is not the information that was given earlier, but there we are. I think I have answered the question.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness then take the intervention?

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

No, I have already had one, and I am happy with it, thank you.

This is not scaremongering. We need only to look at other countries to foresee what the consequences of decriminalisation would be. Sex-selective abortion has been a significant problem in Canada since abortion was decriminalised. An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal has outlined that:

“Easy access to abortion and advances in prenatal sex determination have combined to make Canada a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons”.


Evidence of sex-selective abortions has also been found in Victoria, Australia, since decriminalisation—so much so that one doctor was investigated by the medical board of Victoria for failing to refer a woman for a sex-selective abortion. Australian broadcaster SBS reported that there are higher numbers of boys than girls being born in some ethnic communities in Australia since decriminalisation.

If we go down the path proposed by Clause 191, we could expect the same to happen here, risking profound social and demographic problems. Estimates suggest there are more than 140 million missing women and girls across the globe, in most part resulting from sex-selective abortion and postnatal sex-selection infanticide.

Sex-selective abortion in China, arising in part because of the country’s one-child policy, created enormous demographic challenge in the country, with media reports describing how millions of men have struggled find a wife in the country.