Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Doyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Amendment 563 would require that, before Clause 191 is brought into force, the Government conduct a 12-week public consultation and publish an analysis of the responses. These are modest amendments. They simply insist that, before a change of this magnitude is implemented, the Government give full consideration to its likely impact and to wider public opinion, because this certainly did not happen during the measly 46 minutes that Back-Benchers got to respond to the amendment in the other place. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Doyle (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

The noble Lord is moving his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I do not mind. At this stage, they are probably a bit tired too, changing the annunciator.

The noble Lord might say that he is not opposed to abortion but, frankly, these amendments suggest that he probably is.

[Lord Doyle (Lab)]

My Lords, I should make the point that I jumped to my feet to make earlier—on the comment that the noble Lord made about how long this issue had been debated in the other place for.

The noble Lord was a Member of the other place previously. I have not had that privilege, but we should show colleagues there a little bit more respect, in that the amount of time that they spent debating this issue should not be seen as an indication of whether or not they actually supported it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting, if they had debated it for 46 hours or 46 days that, somehow, the 379 MPs who voted for the clause would not have done so or that they were not aware of what they were voting for in the first place.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

As the noble Lord has specifically challenged me on that issue, the point that was raised in earlier groups was that for government Bills there is an impact assessment, an equality impact assessment and pre-legislative scrutiny. There is significant public consultation resulting from the Cabinet Office, as the noble Lord knows very well, and there are guidelines as to public consultation. None of that happened on this occasion. Therefore, let us pay due regard to the deliberations, scrutiny and oversight of the Commons if there is a proper due process in the way that a Bill evolves and is debated, tested and challenged.

That has not been the case on this occasion, and it is very similar to the pills by post situation. The original wording of the pills by post amendment in the Commons was disorderly and had to be rewritten by special advisers in the Department of Health before it was introduced in the House of Lords. That was tacked on to a Health and Care Bill in the same way that this has been tacked on to a mainstream Crime and Policing Bill. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that his analysis stands up to scrutiny.