Lords Chamber

Monday 2nd February 2026

(began 9 hours, 3 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Linforth; Lord Isaac
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all, Lord, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf, are as enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Carroll Laurette Linforth, officer of our most excellent Order of the British Empire, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Linforth of Redland in our city of Bristol.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Linforth to have and to hold unto her for her life, willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 14th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I. Carroll Baroness Linforth, do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Carroll Baroness Linforth, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well beloved David Isaac, commander of our most excellent Order of the British Empire, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Isaac of Abergavenny, in our county of Monmouthshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Isaac to have and to hold unto him for his life, willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 19th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I. David Lord Isaac, do swear by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. David Lord Isaac, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to My My Lords, My Lords, I regret to inform the house of the death of the noble Lord Lord Triesman on the 30th of January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family and friends. Grateful to the Lord for that.
14:49
14:50
14:50
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
where he later became a visiting professor, and he was clearly a professor, and he was clearly a role model as a teacher. Imagine his surprise and his delight when, his surprise and his delight when, just last week, a former pupil took his seat in this house as Lord his seat in this house as Lord Docherty of Milngavie. As John and I were talking last week, he told me about a regular visit he makes me about a regular visit he makes to a local convent as an MP and now as a member of the Lordships House.

One of the older nuns remembers him as the wee lady from the council who was sent to catch the rats. Little did any of them think that decades later he would find himself champion. The refurbishment of iconic national building so full of rats, the ones in the basement. In all the years I've known John, I've never known him to be anything other than energetic, enthusiastic and dedicated about his work in Parliament. Perfect qualifications for Lord speaker. I saw this at first hand when I first worked closely with him, after he drew a high place in the 1995 private member's bill ballot, and he took on a controversial bill that was going to face a tough time in the House of Lords.

That might sound familiar. Never one to shy away from a challenge, he chose to introduce the Wild Mammals Protection Bill, which would have outlawed foxhunting, hare coursing and deer hunting. Although ultimately successful, it paved the way for later legislation. But for me, it was also his attention to detail and his ability to engage with and listen to different points of view and different approaches, whilst holding to his values that made him so impressive. Another perfect qualification for Lord speaker. My Lords.

He didn't seek the office himself, but was encouraged to step forward to take on the role of Senior Deputy Speaker by Lord Touhig. And after five years, he still had that same enthusiasm to put himself forward as Lord speaker. Beyond chairing our procedures, the role of Lord speaker is, of course, multifaceted, involving engagement with a wide range of audiences, internal and external. Our noble friend has been notably proactive and innovative on this front. From setting up regular engagement with colleagues on accessibility issues and potential uses of AI to recording messages and podcasts, communicating the work of our select committees in this House, and also taking on a new role scrutinising the Restoration and Renewal Client Board as an ambassador for your Lordships' House, our noble friend has built on the work of his predecessors with the same drive and commitment.

His schools outreach work with both teachers and students via the loan with the Lords initiative has been outstanding. And when speaking on the vital role of this House in our democracy, he has been a consistent and positive advocate for the benefits of our work, whilst also promoting ongoing reform. He spoke to the Society's Hansard Society in December 22nd, and he said we need to work proactively to change the laws that we can continue to do what we do well but do it well, better reflecting society and all parts of the country.

During his first year in post, he became the first Lord speaker to visit all of the UK's devolved parliaments and assemblies, and he launched an interparliamentary forum. Because of the issues of devolution and joint working on the international stage, he has co-hosted, Mr. Speaker, multiple state visits to Parliament and my Lords. He gave a wonderful speech of thanks in Westminster Hall to President Zelensky on behalf of us all. Whenever he has been called upon to represent this House at parliamentary events, we enjoyed and we took pride in his engaging, often witty and respectful speeches on behalf of this House.

During visits to various European parliaments, he became the first Lord speaker to attend the German Bundestag and the first to address the Irish Senate. The period between autumn 2022 and spring 2023 saw great upheaval in our country with the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. Throughout that time, our noble friend played a vital role in Parliament and major events of national significance. As I said at the outset, sir, I've known John for nearly 40 years.

His genuine interest in people and his enquiring mind ensured that he is good and engaging company. I followed his friendship and wise counsel. He described being Lord Baker as the honour of his life. Yet his loyalty and love for his wife and family was his first priority. In the statements he your Lordships' House last October, he announced the reasons for his departure and his commitment to support his wife Joan, and the care she needed in doing so. My noble friend spoke of the selfless support for giving him, throughout his professional and political life, a true partnership.

My Lords, it's really a pleasure to have begun these tributes today. I do though that though he is unable to be with us today, he'll be keeping up to date with our work, keeping an eye on us and wishing us well. So thank you John. My Lords, also gives me great pleasure today to welcome the noble Lord Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who I spent many years engaging, and from time to time sparring with both in this chamber and beyond. It was the late Tony Banks, Lord Stratford, who on becoming a government Minister after years of mischievous enjoyment on the backbenches, admitted there would be glitches in my transition from saloon bar sage to world statesmen.

My Lords, the noble Lord Forsyth has his own transition to make. I think it's fair to say that many a Minister on this side of the House and the other side, has learned to fear his forensic and sometimes withering questions. We particularly welcome him to his new role. And those who have worked from committee know that he is inclusive and dedicated. Many noble Lords, especially on my benches, may be surprised to know that we agree a bit more often than we disagree.

And when it comes to the work of your Lordships' House and commitment to high standards, my Lords, we stand together. He has the support of the whole House, and I am in no doubt that he will be an excellent Lord speaker, and I welcome him to the role.
14:57
14:57
14:59
14:59
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. My Lords. I can add from our benches, thanks to Lord McFall for carrying out his duties with great courtesy and warmth. Being great courtesy and warmth. Being speaker of this self-regulating chamber is a difficult job speaker chamber is a difficult job speaker who often cannot speak. Therefore carrying out the duties on the wall sack, but in the commission and on sack, but in the commission and on the R&R board and the myriad of other responsibilities, the power of persuasion is needed. And John of persuasion is needed.

And John McFall has been an outstanding persuader of all of his years of public service. As a distinguished Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, he elevated the House of Commons in a time of great financial concern, so that the public knew that Parliament was listening, considering and acting, and in this House to be Lord speaker, he brought his chairing skills of ten in that committee to 600, not always predictable members of this House with great skill. Perhaps his teaching abilities were put at good use from Dumbarton for Lord McFall to Montrose, and then Arbroath and Saint Andrews University for Lord Forsyth, where, to his own recollection he was a socialist, and then serving Stirling with great commitment.

We know that both John had very deep political beliefs, but he wore them with a friendly demeanour. It's often illustrative to read maiden speeches when statespeople are in their impressionable young years. John McFall railed against spending money on nuclear weapons in his Commons 1 in 1987, and Michael Forsyth criticised the way BT was privatised and his 1 in 1983. And then called for an elected element to this House in his Lords ones later. I think we all think we all know which one he regrets the most, but we know that they both have major things in common a great love of, and respect for the areas and the people that they represented.

A deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability, and also that their politics is based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and wit. We're also grateful for Lord McFall deep instinct to work across parties, and in the short time that I've been leader of these benches, I am extremely grateful to his constant outreach and kindness, and I pay tribute to his highly admirable ambassadorial ship of this house. I cannot speak for others, but for me, when we have had visiting heads of state and governing address us in both houses, it was the foreign dignitaries remarks that have been the second best of the occasions in the Lord Pickles corner conversation between Lord McFall and Lord Forsyth.

Just a couple of years ago, Lord Forsyth said something which struck a chord with me. He said, it really saddens me to see how reputation of Parliament and politicians has been damaged. Whereas as you, as you and I know, the vast majority of parliamentarians are good, decent folk trying to do the best of their country, that could readily have directly applied to John McFall, who served his constituents with passion and dedication, elevated the House of Commons and then had been our ambassador.

And we are most grateful, and we wish John's wife, Joan, and the whole family the very best as he is now able to spend some time with them, and we wish Lord Forsyth the best. We will be admiring his poker face during questions on the Woolsack in months to come. We wish him best from our benches with all of the skills that he brings to bear for this very important role. Yeah.
15:03
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow on from three such warm and special reflections on the noble Lord Lord McFall, and I agree with every word that has been expressed in every sentiment. And on behalf of these benches, I would just add a little bit of early history of one of our most remarkable colleagues, Lord McFall of Alcluith, of course, is a fellow Scot, albeit that I'm an Easterner, I well know it is the ancient name of Dumbarton, and also the great rock on which Dumbarton Castle is built.

Indeed, our cliff, capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, ruled mid-west Scotland with an iron rod in the ninth and 10th centuries. As I say these words, you will be quick to appreciate where our truth is in the pecking order in that bit of the world, and to sympathise with poor old Lord Strathclyde. As sadly not in his place. As we heard. John, a son of Al Keith, was a Dumbarton MP for 23 years. I'm sorry that my maths is a bit different from the noble Baroness, the leaders, but but most importantly, he was chair of the Treasury Select Committee for nine of those years and he had a very well-earned reputation as a fearsome chair flavoured with being extremely competent.

He had essentially weekly meetings with the Bank of England, who much respected his inquisition. Indeed, one deputy governor of the Bank of England was quizzed by him over the northern Rock affair and was accused by him of being, and, I quote, asleep in the back shop. Well, there was a mugging out front as he stepped down from chairing the committee, the Bank of England organised a drinks reception for him. Now, this is a very rare thing indeed, and by chance, a senior member of the Bank of England who had worked there most of their lives was here a couple of weeks ago, and I asked them about it, and they said that there were two reasons for holding the reception.

The first was to thank him unreservedly for his work as chair of the committee, and the second was to check that he really was was to check that he really was going. In 2016, John took over from Lord Laming to become the newly named Senior Deputy Speaker, and he very much created this role. But his most lasting achievement was, of course, the review of committees which the whole House agreed to in October 2019. And using this structure, the old EU committees were morphed into what are today powerful and proud self-standing entities such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Change is always difficult. And yet, speaking as John's then deputy chair of the EU committee structure, I saw John seeming to make it easy. When it wasn't, he invoked his Treasury Select Committee experience at the first sign of trouble. I have said very little of his time as Lord speaker, but I didn't want to repeat the warm words of my three previous colleagues. The common thread of what had been said is of his integrity, his outstanding political instincts and his disarming smile.

One recent thing summed everything up for me. John came to the crossbench weekly meeting last Wednesday to reflect on his time as Lord speaker. As many here today will know, normally a guest speaker is subjected to searching questions and a comprehensive examination of their brief. Instead, John, when it came to questions, there was a great number of short contributions expressing gratitude and giving congratulations to him on his various achievements in office. At the end of the session, and quite without precedent, 50 Cross-bench peers got up and gave him a standing ovation.

We very much look forward to welcoming him to our benches in due course, when he can return a very few words about our new Lord speaker. Of course, it's very good news for the Scottish Peers Association because we can continue to have our drinks parties continue to have our drinks parties in the River room. We're also, if you if you'd like a drinks party, we do have a few more space. If anyone would like to apply to be a member. But the new Lord speaker has wonderful energy and great wit and charm, and we have a number of big problems ahead of us, and I wish him a lot of luck.

As I know everyone on our benches do.
15:08
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
And Lord, may I add the thanks of our benches to our former Lord speaker. We are enormously grateful for the warmth of his welcome to us, which began from the moment we were introduced to the House and continued each day as he introduced the duty bishop. Leading prayers. We also warmly welcome the noble Lord Forsyth, whose enormous gifts have already been attested and with whom we look forward to working for the effective work and maintenance of the rights and privileges of your Lordships House.

One of my own privileges is to be invited to comment each day on requests for private notice questions. PMQs are an important part of the work of the House. They allow us to raise matters that are urgent and important, and where the Order Paper is unlikely to offer a better opportunity. Lord McFall wisdom in discerning which to accept, as demonstrated his commitment to allowing the House to scrutinise government, whilst ensuring that the questions asked are those which will shed light on an issue, rather than simply rehearse familiar arguments.

You'll experience an example a little later this afternoon. It is, of course, of a different branch of the Christian faith from my own, hugely influenced by the work of Gustavo Gutierrez and the liberation theologians of Latin America so prominent in the 60s and 70s, he is as comfortable quoting from papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican Two as from acts of this Parliament. I'm not sure Lord Forsyth will quite follow him in that regard, but John's faith underpins his political beliefs just as it does his character and moral standing.

It was, my Lord's, famously quipped to the speaker in the other place, on a similar occasion to this, that there was Methodism in his madness of our own Lord McFall may truly be said that there is Catholicism in his kindness.
15:10
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Lord Speaker)
-
-
My Lord, I wish to add a few words of my own in tribute to my predecessor, Lord McFall. I've known him since the 1980s, when the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomond divided us. He was the Member for Dumbarton and I was the Member for Stirling, and we sat on opposing benches, of course, in the House of Commons and often disagreed. But in later years we became firm friends. I came to respect him as an honourable, diligent and trustworthy parliamentarian, guided by principle and driven by the common good.

That instinct was rooted in his upbringing. He grew up in a tough, close knit, working class Clydeside community where there was real hardship but also a strong sense of belonging and of responsibility for others. His mother ran a small newsagent's shop serving the whole neighbourhood, and it gave him an early feel for people and for what holds a community together. He believed everyone should have a second chance at education, as he did. As the leader pointed out, he left school at 15 and took a job with the Parks department, weeding flowerbeds.

Years later, he went to night school, where teachers spotted his considerable potential and encouraged him. And that opened the way to university, a fulfilling career as a teacher and a deputy head, and a lifelong commitment to learning. His public service showed the same seriousness of purpose as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, has already been alluded to. And in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, he helped to keep all communities engaged in the peace process, and following the financial crash of 2008, he held leading figures from the city to account in a series of select committee hearings, which did much to expose the root cause of the crisis and paved the way for the Bank of future Bank, Future Banking Commission, and the reforms designed to prevent another crisis in the House of Lords.

He served as a senior Deputy Speaker and then as Lord speaker, improving how the House works. There's more to do and communicating its value to the country. He helped to steer the House through the Covid period, ensuring that scrutiny and revision continued when normal proceedings were severely disrupted. As Lord speaker, he was tireless in explaining what this House contributes, encouraging sensible reform but insisting that critics should first understand the work we do. He strengthened education and outreach and embraced new ways of communicating, including digital media, to bring the work of members to a wider audience.

He was the members champion, accessible to colleagues, attentive to concerns, and determined that the House should serve its members better. He now steps back from the speakership so he can spend more time caring for his wife, Joan. He returns home, where he can still see from his window that flowerbed he tended as a young teenager. It should remind him, with pride, of how a life of public service began and blossomed to the benefit of Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom.

He's won the affection of members, staff and officials alike, and I know we all join in wishing him well in the future together with well in the future together with his wife, Joan. First Oral Question Baroness Hayter.
15:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Representations to the government of China to seek the release and return to Britain of United Kingdom citizen Jimmy Lai
-

I'm delighted to be the first to be asked by the new Lord speaker to beg leave, to ask the question standing on my name from the Order Paper.
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Oral questions: Performance improvements delivered by nationalised passenger rail services since 28 November 2024
-

EA. Moylan.
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. >> To build. >> On the question of Lord Marks can my noble friend say something more about continuity of care when more about continuity of care when prisoners leave prison, whether they've been on remand or been sentences? I'm not just talking about drug addicts. I'm also talking about a whole range of medical issues which need that continuity. Can my noble friend say something more about how he's building on that care?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend. The what is absolutely vital is when people leave prison, we need to make sure. leave prison, we need to make sure. And because so many of them leave still with drug and alcohol issues and mental health issues, is that we carry on that care with our we carry on that care with our health partners. And I'm really pleased we're rolling out four new NHS neighbourhood hubs working with the probation team. So these are the probation team. So these are based in probation offices so the teams can all work together.

I'm hoping to roll that out further. In hoping to roll that out further. In some ways it's a bit like the intensive supervision court model, which is to address someone's complex needs. You need more people in the room than just probation staff, even though they do a fantastic job. So our health partners, DWP partners and so on work. And on Thursday of last week I was in Southampton meeting the probation teams there. And what was really clear, what they were telling me is apart from needing lots more technology and support, it's how they can be more joined up with other government departments, especially in health and housing, because it is all that joint approach which is absolutely vital to ensure that when they leave prison, we keep the support around them so they don't come back.

Thank you.
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
None Portrait Oral questions: Presenting Parliament with the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single-sex spaces before the first anniversary of the guidance being sent to the Equalities Minister
-

Fourth Oral Question. question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Vere that reply. But given that no discussions took place with the sanctioned parliamentarians either before the visit or since. I wonder if the noble Baroness could give us greater clarity on what was agreed and what was not. Thus far, it remains unclear whether sanctions on the families of Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws and myself have actually been lifted. No mention has been made of the sanctions. Perhaps more importantly on Sir Geoffrey Nice KC on Doctor Joe Smith, Finlay on Essex Court Chambers, on the Conservative Party human rights group and one of the parliamentarians who is no longer a member of the House of Commons, that is Tim Loughton.

Now, neither Lady Kennedy nor I thought or wanted any kind of preferential treatment. What we wanted was justice for those who have suffered at the hands of the CCP, whether it's the hundreds of pro-democracy advocates who are incarcerated along with Jimmy Lai in prisons in Hong Kong, or those who have suffered as a result of genocide in Xinjiang in 2021. I moved an amendment to the trade bill to outlaw free trade agreements with countries perpetrating genocide, and the noble Baroness will recall that we had in mind China and the appalling treatment of the Uyghurs.

The Prime Minister himself voted for the amendment three times. On this visit, the Prime Minister said that the previous government had pursued an ice age in relations with China. Yet those amendments were right. Then why are they wrong now? Was the House of Commons wrong to vote for a declaration of genocide in Xinjiang against the Uyghurs? And can the noble Baroness please assure us that the UK sanctions against the four Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for genocide in Xinjiang remain in place, and that no new state visit will take place by Xi Jinping until the genocide ends.

ends.
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
None Portrait Business of the House
-

My Lords. >> Motion to agree the report of the Conduct Committee, the conduct of the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Devon, on behalf of Lord Kakkar. My Lords, if I may. Before I move the motion, and in light of move the motion, and in light of the tributes to Lord McFall from the Frontbenches, may I offer a brief thank you from the backbenches for his tireless and devoted service to our house. My Lords, on behalf of my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Kakkar, who is unable to be present today, I beg to move the motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

The report before the House on the conduct of Lord of the Earl of Shrewsbury, follows allegations in the Guardian newspaper that the noble Earl Lord Risby had made improper claims for travel expenses. In brief, the Commissioner for standards found that the noble Earl had used a Rover ticket purchased with the House of Lords credit card to travel from London to Stafford, Stafford and back for a business meeting, and that he had made mileage claims in respect of four journeys that were in reality never made.

The commissioner dismissed further unrelated allegations relating to the declarations of interests and provision of paid parliamentary services. The noble Earl did not appeal against either the Commissioner's findings or his recommended sanction, which was that the noble Earl be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks. My Lords, in the absence of an appeal, the role of the Conduct Committee was limited to considering the recommended sanction, and we gave serious thought to this matter. After an initial discussion, we sought further written representations from the Commissioner and from the noble Earl, and we are grateful to both of them for supplying this additional information.

In our subsequent discussion, my Lords, we reflected carefully on the various mitigating and aggravating factors. We accept that the noble Earl did not act dishonestly, and that he swiftly apologised and repaid the sum involved, which was just under £200. But we also consider that any breach of the code of conduct that involves misuse of public funds is inherently serious. While the noble Earl did not act dishonestly, his use of the rover ticket was intentional and his approach to mileage claims was unacceptably casual.

We therefore concluded that a short suspension was merited, and we endorse the Commissioner's recommendation that the noble Earl be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords under Standing Order 68. No debate is allowed on this motion. No debate is allowed on this motion. I must therefore put the question. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Lord Sewell further, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kakkar, I beg to move that in accordance with beg to move that in accordance with Standing Order 11, the Earl of Shrewsbury be suspended from the service of this House for a period

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of two weeks. That, in accordance with Standing Order 11, the Earl of Shrewsbury, be suspended from the service of the House on the terms set out in the Order Paper. As many set out in the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. content the contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, we now come to an instrument previously debated in Grand Committee Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Site assets, its crypto assets. I do beg your pardon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulations 2025. The Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move this motion standing wish to move this motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in his name on the Order Paper. The question is. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it content. The contents have it sustainable aviation fuel bill order for consideration Lord Hendy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Richmond Hill. My Lords, my noble friend, I move the order of duration, motions and his name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and his name on the Order Paper. Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as of that agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it house to be again in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it house to be again in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill. Lord Hanson of Flint. I beg to move that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House be now again in committee on the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.
16:14
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - committee stage (day 14) - part one
-

The contents have it. Clause 191, amendment 455. The Baroness Meyer.
16:14
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my amendment for 55. Amendment in my name. This Amendment in my name. This amendment seeks to preserve legal protection for unborn babies who could survive outside the womb. Clause 191 would fully Clause 191 would fully decriminalise abortions by stating that a woman would commit no offence in relation to her own pregnancy. In doing so, it would this apply not only section 58 and 59 of the offences against the Person Act 1861, but also the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

This is a serious change. Much of the attention has focussed on the 1861 act, however, less attention has been given to the removal of the 1929 act. Infant Life Preservation Act, which protects viable unborn babies. When the 1929 act was passed, viability was understood to be around 28 weeks. Today it is generally around 24 weeks, but medical advances mean some babies can survive from around 22 weeks. Our abortion law recognises viability. This is precisely why there is a time limit.

Clause 191 would remove protections where the death of a viable baby is caused by the mother. That would mean that even a full term baby could be aborted by the mother with no legal consequences. A baby's protection would then depend not on whether it could survive independently, but on who ends its life. This cannot be right. Under current law. A woman at 32 weeks pregnancy when a baby is fully formed, who contacts an abortion service may receive support, counselling or discuss adoption, but an abortion cannot be performed under clause 191.

However, she could obtain pills and end her own pregnancy without breaking the law. The consequence is clear no prosecution at any stage for any reason, even when a baby is capable of being born alive, that would overturn the careful balance Parliament has maintained for decades. My amendment is deliberately modest. It allows the disapplication of section 58 and 59 disapplication of section 58 and 59 of the 1861 act, but retains act 19 2129, so that the deliberate destruction of a viable unborn child remains an offence.

This is not about reopening the wider abortion debate. It is about ensuring ensuring that Bible babies do not lose their legal protection rights. There are also practical concerns abortion pills are easily obtained and sometimes used dangerously late in pregnancy, removing all criminal. Criminal liability removes an important safeguard and may leave coercion and abuse undiscovered. Judges already exercised compassion in the very small number of cases that come before the courts. Clause 191 goes far beyond that by removing accountability altogether, the current law strikes a balance.

Abortion is permitted up to 24 weeks, and beyond that, only in exceptional circumstances. Removing all limits is to cross a line close to birth. The difference between a foetus and a newborn may be a matter of hours, yet one would be fully protected in law, while the other could lawfully be destroyed. We, we do not allow infanticide of newborn babies, so why should we? Should the law treat a fully termed unborn baby differently? This proposal was not in the manifesto and has no public, had no public consultation, sorry, and has had no public consultation.

Such a profound change deserves scrutiny. Public support for abortion up to full term is very limited, while support for protection after viability is strong. I do not oppose abortion in all circumstances, but diluting the already limited protection for viable unborn babies is just a step too far without limits. Backed by meaningful legal deterrent, women may come under pressure to terminate pregnancy late in their terms, sometimes against their own wishes or consent. Clause one nine 1st May also facilitate disability, selective abortion and sex selective abortion, placing unborn girls at a particular risk.

For that reason, I support Baroness Eaton's amendment to prevent sex selective abortions, which already do exist in this country. Baroness Monckton has tabled an amendment to remove clause 191 altogether, and I hope it will command wide support. My amendment sits alongside it and ensures that this House focuses clearly on what clause 191 really does, and on the rights of viable babies. If we cannot protect children at the very early, at the very beginning of life, when they are the most vulnerable, what credibility do we have when we claim to put children first? I therefore urge the House to reject this clause.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My amendment. I would like to move my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Proposed clause 191. Page 223.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause 191. Page 223. Line 11 leave out and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. amendment.
16:21
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Portrait Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
amendment. >> For this. I JSO. I'm so sorry, I do apologise. >> Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. I speak to clause. 191 and my amendment. This clause should not stand part of the clause should not stand part of the bill. Our role as parliamentarians, bill. Our role as parliamentarians, and especially in this House, is to ensure that laws that make it onto the statute book are safe. Good the statute book are safe. Good laws require careful thought and prior consideration regarding any prior consideration regarding any unintended consequences. Clause 191 fails to meet these criteria and should not become law.

It was hastily added to an unrelated bill. A concerns a proposal that was neither a government manifesto commitment nor called for by the public, nor subject to even rudimentary scrutiny. Let me be clear. The law change proposed by clause 191 does not primarily relate to one's views on abortion, on which there will be a range of perspectives in this House, the abortion debate is often presented as pitting the rights of a woman against the rights of an unborn child, at varying stages of development.

It is not accidental that the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. That roughly marks the stage at which the baby is fully viable. When born, this clause does not even fail to consider that person, but it would also endanger the mother. Laws exist for a variety of reasons, and sometimes they exist to deter us from doing things that would cause significant harm to ourselves or others, out of motives that may be devious or simply desperate. The current law prohibiting women from performing their own abortions after 24 weeks is one such law.

The existing legal deterrent protects women. For example, if a partner seeks to pressure a woman into an abortion beyond the 24 week limit, a limit which I note is already double that common in most European countries, a woman can currently point to the criminal law as a reason for not doing so. Removing this would make it much harder for vulnerable women to resist such pressure, and would be particularly troubling, giving the dangers of unsupervised self-induced abortions later in pregnancy.

There is, I think, a supreme irony that those who claim to support legal abortion on the basis that the alternative would be unsafe, illegal abortions are now proposing that women can perform these illegal abortions. I mean, abortions outside of the terms of the Abortion Act in an unsafe environment. This law change would effectively reintroduce backstreet abortion, as women would not be able to have terminations in a clinic beyond the 24 week limit, but could do so at home on their own without the prospect of any subsequent investigation.

Using pills not designed for use outside of a clinical context beyond ten weeks, the potential consequences are terrifying. I accept that none of these things have happened in Northern Ireland. When we changed the law and decriminalised abortion in Northern Ireland several years ago, but not literally none of the things that the noble Lady is mentioning have happened, nor in any of the other 50 countries where abortion is legal, where abortion is being decriminalised. To that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My if noble Lady will bear with. We can't have an intervention on an intervention if she allows the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response and then. Thank you. Thank you for your intervention. The potential intervention. The potential consequences are terrifying, leading to more women are. I thank the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble. Lady for giving way. It's a noble Lady aware that despite the noble Lady aware that despite the very extreme abortion regime that was imposed upon Northern Ireland by the other place, that actually there is no telemedicine in Northern Ireland, that's the one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing we do not have. I received a letter from a former paediatric practitioner former paediatric practitioner deeply concerned about this proposed legislation. She points out that when babies are legally aborted for medical reasons at over 22 weeks gestation, they are first euthanized by lethal injection into the heart. This is recommended by the heart. This is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology to prevent larger, sentient babies from being delivered. Injured but still alive. She asks if clause 191 becomes law and if this form of foeticide is not performed, abortion medication is taken and the baby is born alive.

What then will happen? And contrary to claims of supporters of clause 191, women are not facing lengthy prison sentences for illegal abortions, the most high profile case in recent years of a woman who was 32 to 34 weeks pregnant but admitted misleading the British Pregnancy Advisory Service by telling them she was seven weeks pregnant resulted initially in a short prison sentence, which was quickly suspended on appeal. Sarah Cat was convicted in 2012 for a 39 week abortion, having been described by the Chief inspector, who led the investigation as cold and calculating the judge in the case.

On appeal, Mrs. Justice Rafferty, said Mrs. Cat caused the death of a foetus at term. She planned what she did with some care. She ensured that when she delivered the infant it was in private. Somewhere there is a body under clause 191. It would not even be permissible for the police to have investigated such a case. When Tonia Antoniazzi, the proposer of this clause, was interviewed by the House magazine and asked about this particular case, she said, if you could be cold and callous, you need to be helped and you need to be taken out of the criminal system.

That opens an extraordinary vista. A tiny proportion of the hundreds of thousands of abortions a year have resulted in women facing prosecution. But the solution to these cases is not to decriminalise abortion to term for women in relation to their own pregnancies, but rather to restore in-person consultations before women are able to obtain abortion pills. To enable a reliable gestational age check to take place. It is for this reason that I support amendment 460, tabled in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Stroud Maya Ellis, one of the clause 191 supporters and the other place said that a woman should not be criminalised for anything to do with or within her body.

This, of course, is the case for absolute decriminalisation of abortion in any circumstances, and that is the true intention of the proposals of this clause. But it means that the viable unborn child, up to full term, would have the moral status of property, just as a slave did in the American Deep South in the 18th century. No one could be criminally liable for the destruction of their own human property. I do not consider this progressive. We are told that clause 191 is a moderate change to the law that would affect the 20th.

That would not affect the 24 week time limit. However, given that most abortions now take place outside of a clinical setting without an in-person consultation, the 24 week time limit would become redundant. Women could simply tell an abortion provider they are below the legal limit, and in all likelihood, they would be sent the pills by post. It is for this reason that a legal deterrent underpinning the 24 week limit is more important in the current context. Clause 191 is not moderate, it is radical, and its effect is to decriminalise abortions of babies up to birth.

If a woman seeks to induce a termination late in pregnancy by obtaining easily acquired pills, the Crime and Policing Bill is an important and lengthy piece of legislation which this House has been debating at committee for two and a half months. The bill was not designed and is not an appropriate forum to bring further widening of our already highly permissive abortion laws. It is astonishing that this House has been asked to consider such a far reaching law, with so little prior scrutiny, abortion providers, alongside the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, lobbied for the Pills by Post scheme introduced during the pandemic.

It is remarkable that rather than reverse this scheme, that they seek an even more radical law that would cover up the consequences of their scheme and make further such cases more likely. Along with all members of this House, I received a letter from the public affairs manager at the Royal College asking me to speak in favour of clause 191 to the Crime and Crime and Policing Bill at Committee stage on Monday, the 2nd of February. This was in bold type, it quoted the president of the Royal College criticising the law for affecting women at the most vulnerable times, and said that women should not face the prospect of a criminal sanction for making decisions about their own healthcare.

I find it striking that in this statement there was not a single mention of the unborn child. It is as if such a person does not exist morally or physically. We often use the phrase the elephant in the room, which everyone knows about but is never mentioned. This is the baby in the womb. When we talk about the most vulnerable, surely we must mean that human being. For all these reasons, this clause must not stand.
16:31
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Here. >> Here. >> Crossbench to give way for. >> An amendment if that's helpful,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An amendment if that's helpful, rather than debate, the amendment I'm introducing is four, five, six, I'm introducing is four, five, six, just the second one in the group. It has the support of Baroness Wolf, Baroness Baroness Porter and Viscount Hailsham, especially grateful to Baroness Wolf, who unfortunately cannot be here due to a prior commitment overseas. Amendment 456 is a simple amendment. It would reinstate the offences which clause 191 would otherwise decriminalise for women acting in relation to their pregnancy.

The amendment also provides that criminal proceedings against any woman acting in relation to a pregnancy could not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Under the current law, a woman may avoid criminal liability if defences like duress apply. The effect of clause 191 is that, regardless of circumstances, it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to do any act with the intention of procuring her own miscarriage at any stage of the pregnant stage of the pregnancy.

It would, however, remain an offence for any other person to administer drugs or use instruments to cause an abortion. If clause 191 is adopted, we would end up with a law that simultaneously denies criminal responsibility to the principal, again, regardless of individual intent or circumstances, while maintaining it for others. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for the very useful meeting that she arranged between some of us and the proponents of clause 191, and in particular Miss Antoniazzi MP before Christmas.

And as the proponents explained to us, what has prompted a clause 191 is a rise in completely unmeritorious investigations against women. And some of these cases are genuinely appalling. We know, for example, of the case of a woman who went into spontaneous premature labour, called for help and instead of being met by medical support, was met by the police. And while she was still trying to resuscitate her prematurely born baby, even before the paramedics arrived, the police were in the house searching the bins.

She was then separated from her critically ill baby and investigated for a year for abortion offences. Despite medical tests confirming she had done should not take any medication. There are other cases of women who have been forced to take abortion pills by an abusive and violent partner were put under criminal investigation, while the partner was not. These investigations very seldom result in prosecutions, and very few prosecutions hardly ever result in a conviction. Under our amendment, the consent of the Attorney General would be required to institute criminal proceedings, not to open an investigation.

But there are reasons to believe that this procedural requirement would have a restraining impact on the investigation. Phase two the attorney General cannot give consent retrospectively. The CPS guidance for offences that require a consent makes it very clear that prosecutors should seek consent before charge. The current policy for these offences also requires the involvement of senior officials before a case is submitted to the Attorney General's office for consent, a deputy chief crown prosecutor or deputy head of the Central Casework Division must check that the case has been prepared to an appropriate standard.

Following on from that, a lawyer of the Attorney General's office will review the application before placing it before the attorney general, and that lawyer may seek further information or clarification from the relevant prosecutor and their line manager. It is also necessary to ensure that the Attorney General is allowed sufficient time to consider the case, and so that he can make his own assessment. And finally, for all of these offences, the role of the Attorney Attorney General does not end with the consent to prosecution.

The Attorney General will have to maintain an interest in the progress of the case, and will have to be kept up to date. My Lords, this amendment cannot rule out the risk of an inappropriate or a meritorious investigation. That risk cannot be ruled out for any offence which is in our statute books. But the amendment seeks to balance competing legal and moral principles, while taking into account the reality of the situation. The requirement of Attorney General consent should discourage the police from investigating cases that will not pass muster, not only with the CPS at a senior level, but also with the Attorney General, and the requirement would also offer an opportunity for a tightening of the policy in respect of these offences, so that the risk of a meritorious investigations and prosecutions is further reduced.

The amendment does not specify a requirement for the Attorney General to introduce guidance on the circumstances in which consent would be given, but it is to be expected that such guidance would be published, and the guidance could make it clear that the bar is indeed a high one. This is a probing amendment. There are other amendments in this group in which I interested, and which I would be inclined to support, to mitigate against what also seems to me to be a rather radical approach.

In clause 191. I believe you would all be assisted in this debate if the government could help us understand a bit more about what is really happening with these investigations. And so to conclude, I have three brief questions for the Minister. First, what are the latest available data on these investigations, and do the data confirm any increase in criminal investigations against women since 2020? Second, how does the government explain this rise in investigations? And finally, other than clause 191, which of course was not part of the bill originally, what policy steps have the government been considered to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remedy this problem? My Lords, I rise. To. Speak to amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to amendment. 461J in my name on the Order Paper. I'd like to thank my noble Paper. I'd like to thank my noble friends Baroness Goldie the noble Lord Lord Patel the noble Lady Baroness Miller from Filton Dormer Baroness Miller from Filton Dormer for supporting this amendment. This amendment seeks to add a new clause amendment seeks to add a new clause after clause 191, which deals with pardoning women who have had a conviction or caution for an offence by the abolished clause 191 because existing legislation.
16:38
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
Abortion is classified as a violent crime from the 1861 legislation, and the record means that those that these women will be that these women will be permanently having to declare that as a part of the DBS check, thus as a part of the DBS check, thus continuing the damage caused by this offence. It would ensure that removal of women's details from removal of women's details from police systems, like the other amendments in this group, 459C it seeks to right a wrong and the injustice.

And of course, it is not the first time your Lordships House has sought to do this, when something which has been unlawful and unjust is abolished. And of course, I'm referring to the changes of the law on homosexuality and what followed amendments in this very large group which seek to amend or get rid of this clause passes. It was by a vote of 137 to 379 on a free vote in the Commons will form the debate on this very large group of amendments this afternoon.

So, for example, the noble Lady Baroness Myers, amendment 455, profoundly seems to misunderstand what this means, because actually, if abortion remains criminalised after 24 weeks of gestation, under the current law, only women after 24 weeks of gestation are targeted by the police, even when, as in many cases, they have had in fact, most cases a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth, which would. So that would that amendment would make no difference to the current cruel situation. But the noble Lady actually says she wants to get rid of the whole clause anyway, on amendment 456 and 456, say as as introduced by the noble Lord, essentially means abortion still would remain criminalised and would reverse the change that was agreed in the Commons.

But I am aware that some noble Lords are very concerned about this cause, but who also support reproductive rights for women. And I would ask those noble Lords, we have already had many meetings about this discussion about this with the Royal colleges and others, and I would ask that between now and the next stage, those of us who actually take the view that reproductive rights are important but have concerns about this amendment should continue those discussions. So I would ask that we should do that again.

But unlike the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh on her clause stand part speech, this clause has not been plucked out of thin air in the Commons. It is the product of years and years of trying to mitigate the criminalisation of women under cruel and awful circumstances. There have been entreaties to the DPP, there have been discussions with the policing bodies, there have been discussions with our legal systems and every single one of them. And I mean, I could bore the house by giving you dates and facts about this, have taken the view that Parliament has to take a view on this matter.

This is not something that can be mitigated by changing guidelines or rules. And indeed, Parliament did take a view on this and did decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland a few years ago. And as I have said, this had no detrimental effect. So I would say that this clause that we are discussing today seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales are no longer subject to year long investigations and criminal charges and the kind of thing that the noble Lord has just explained.

Since 2020, around 100 women have faced police investigations, six have gone to court, one has been sent to prison. The clause will not change the wider abortion law. Existing time limits of the 1967 act. It is, my Lords, supported by 50 organisations, including the Medical Royal Colleges, violence against women and girls groups and every group that represents abortion providers in the UK and other women's organisations. Seems to me, my Lords, that whilst we should discuss our concerns about this clause and we should discuss whether it does the job we want it to do, but actually there is support for this.

50 countries in the world do not have criminalise abortion. Why on earth should we in England and Wales? RCM I.
16:43
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
Rise to. >> Rise to. >> Speak to amendment 456C but may I say I do support amendment 456, I say I do support amendment 456, which was moved by the noble Lord Lord Verdirame. My Lords, the purpose in tabling four, five, six C is to see if a compromise can be achieved between those who favour clause 191 and in its present form, and those who are strongly opposed to it. Now, late term abortions are, of course, already lawful if they fall within the permissive sections of subsections one, B, C, and D of the Abortion Act 1967, and those subsections, of course, permit late term abortions if there is a serious risk to the health of the mother or a serious risk of abnormalities in the unborn child.

But clause 191 does, of course, go very much wider than this. It would permit a mother without any restriction in law, to abort a child right up to the moment of birth. And, my Lords, I find it very difficult to make an ethical or a moral distinction between killing a child immediately after birth and killing a child immediately before birth. One has been born, the other has not. But I cannot discern any difference in principle.

Now, at Second Reading, my Lords, I said that clause 199 should be deleted from the bill. On reflection, I've come to the conclusion that such is too harsh a judgement. Moreover, it is hard to reconcile that view with the Infanticide Act of 1938. I think a compromise is justified and hence my amendment. 456 C now the amendment has two essential purposes. Firstly, to provide a defence similar to that provided in the Infanticide Act of 1938.

That statute provides a defence for a mother who kills her child within 12 months of birth, provided that at the time of her action, the mother's mind was disturbed by reason of the pregnancy, and that defence by Lords was reviewed in 2006 by the Law Commission and was upheld. It's hard to see, my Lords, why, in logic of principle, a defence that applies to a killing immediately after birth should not be applied to a late term abortion, even if immediately before birth.

And that is the purpose of the first part of my amendment. But to be technical for a moment in drafting the defence I have by imposing the burden of proof on the mother, reflected the language of the Homicide Act of 1957. Under the Infanticide Act, the burden is on the prosecution to negate the defence. I've also provided, my Lords, that the balance of the mother's mind must be seriously disturbed, and that is a more stringent test than that provided in the Infanticide Act.

But where the burden of proof should rest, and the stringency of the test could, of course, be matters for further consideration, and may be compromised. My Lords, the second element in amendment 456 is to provide a defence where the woman was the victim of domestic abuse within the meaning of section one of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and where such abuse was a substantial cause of the woman's actions, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not be in any way embarrassed if I say that the suggested defence owes much to the experience and expertise of the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-sloss.

And I know, too, that this consideration is of great concern to those who support one by one. I suggest that both defences reflect circumstances which will be understood excepted to by many, perhaps most of our fellow citizens. But I also suggest that there are many circumstances which would not secure general acceptance, albeit they would be allowed under clause 191. For example, the mother's dismay at the gender of the birth, the fact that the mother feared that the birth might disturb her employment, a holiday or moving houses, financial pressures, or the breakdown in the mother's relations with the former partner, perhaps the father of the child.

My Lords, if clause 191 is allowed to pass unamended, these and similar reasons would be treated as lawful justification of killing a child right up to the moment of birth. And I do not believe that such an outcome is right. I do not think that our fellow citizens would accept it, and I do not think either, that we in Parliament should permit it. Now, one final matter before I conclude I do. My Lords acknowledge, and this is, I know, a concern to many of your Lordships, that the amendment does not prevent an inquiry into the circumstances of a late term abortion.

And I recognise, my Lords, that such an investigation will be inevitably distressing. But such a process is inevitable in all cases where a potential breach of the law is involved. And, of course, the investigation must be done with sensitivity in the same way as inquiries of a rape victim should be conducted with sensitivity. But, my Lords, that consideration standing alone should not frustrate our duty to protect the life of an unborn child. Now, the amendment 456 sets out the circumstances which I suggest could properly be regarded as sufficiently compelling as to justify a late term abortion.

And there may be other circumstances in my Lords which this committee may identify as proper reasons for a late term abortion. If identified, they could be added as additional statutory defences. But, my Lords, we must keep in mind that Parliament has a duty of care to an unborn child capable of being born alive. It is an obligation which reflects the value that all of us should place on human life. The life of an unborn child, close to the moment of birth should only be extinguished in the most compelling of circumstances.

Clause 191. If unamended floats that principle without amendment, it should not be enacted, and I hope that the amendment that I have spoken to, or something like it, may serve as a basis for a compromise between what I know are strongly held opinions. And it is in that spirit, my Lords, that I commend amendment 456 C to this committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. The Lord, the Lord of Lords, sits down. Can he assist me, please? sits down. Can he assist me, please? I do understand all the legal reasoning that is put forward and I reasoning that is put forward and I am not a lawyer, so I cannot challenge any of that. What I can have asked for assistance is what actually happens in reality. In actually happens in reality. In reality, lots of mothers lose their babies as stillbirth at all periods of pregnancy.

A lot of them are unexplained and every health professional has a real concern when that happens. But for decades now, we have not been able to find reasons of unexplained stillbirths. So if a mother comes in unexpectedly at 36 weeks of pregnancy and has lost a baby, she delivers a stillbirth. And if she is reported to have interfered with that pregnancy and she has not, she will be subjected to according to this amendment. If I interpret it correctly, she'll be subjected to to prove that she was mentally unstable or financially handicapped or whatever.

But she was not. She lost a baby, naturally unexplained. So in that circumstances, how would that your amendment work?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe that all the investigations in this matter should be conducted with great should be conducted with great sensitivity, because I take the noble Lords points. But at the end of the day, you have to establish a of the day, you have to establish a principle. And may I just complete this before I get a further intervention from the noble Lord? intervention from the noble Lord? If there is powerful evidence that the mother has wilfully terminated the mother has wilfully terminated the birth of a child immediately up to the moment of birth, then it is right that the Parliament should set a into procedure, a process whereby she has to be investigated.

If she falls within the defence, then she will have a defence. I admit that it doesn't prevent an investigation, but at the end of the day, you do have to stand. Determine where you stand on whether or not this House is really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to guard human life. How will the Lord needs to tell us how you will know? How will you us how you will know? How will you know that this is not a a loss of a baby through natural? What happens? baby through natural? What happens? Or how will you know and who will decide?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is part of the process of investigation and I very much, in this context, sympathise with the point which was made by the noble Lord Lord Verdirame, which is a further filter only in very clear cases where there's been a clear breach of the law, should there be a prosecution. I think these are very sensitive matters and need to be conducted sensibly. But we do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to stand on principle here. Respect for the noble Lord, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respect for the noble Lord, I genuinely do, but I fear there's a difference between speaking in difference between speaking in theory, in theory, and actually in practical reality. And I want to point out that I have certainly point out that I have certainly killed at least one baby at term myself. Possibly. I could have done done it twice. There's a condition done it twice. There's a condition called ectopic pregnancy. Very occasionally pregnancies grow outside the womb or motor outside the womb during the course of the pregnancy and are left outside the uterus, where they leave a huge hole in the abdomen, a grave risk of the bleeding mother when that placenta is removed.

And in this situation, of course, very often, as I did in my case without any alternative, I did what I thought was a caesarean section in both cases to find once I'd opened the abdomen, the uterus was not, in fact pregnant, but I was faced with a baby outside the uterus with a placenta. One baby was clearly very, very abnormal, actually. In fact, there were various limb abnormalities which caused this. The other baby looked completely normal. In fact, both babies were delivered and thank goodness, with the help of my colleagues, we were able to save both mothers lives because of the bleeding, which is known as the noble Lord.

Lord Patel will will certainly support. Support is really a very, very frightening situation in the in the operating theatre. But I want to go, if I may, to tell the House. The story of one of my patients was a patient for about 7 or 8 years. Laura had a very rare condition, but there were many, many rare hereditary conditions like this or genetic conditions like this. It was called in this her case, Lesch-nyhan syndrome. And this is a is a serious disease which affects tends to affect only boys but not girls.

But it can affect any any foetus. Occasionally Laura had a series of births. About four of them ended in miscarriage. She
16:56
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
desperately wanted a baby and eventually she did actually conceive successfully, although she conceive successfully, although she was often infertile. But she finally did actually have a baby, finally did actually have a baby, and she gave birth to a baby rather prematurely, about four weeks before term that had Lesch-nyhan Lesch-nyhan syndrome. Peter was Lesch-nyhan syndrome. Peter was seriously abnormal. Peter had all sorts of neurological problems. He was unable to eat properly. He was unable to move properly in order as he grew up.

As a teenager, he had to be strapped in his wheelchair to prevent him mutilating himself. That didn't stop him being floating himself, and eventually he started to bite off his lips and his tongue. So indeed, he had to have his teeth extracted and that wasn't sufficient. He couldn't be moved around on his wheelchair because of course he would always be facing the stairs. Possibly if he was upstairs and want to tilt himself downstairs. And Peter continued through his life a very long time.

I don't know exactly when he died, but I think he was about 18 now. We could do nothing about this lady, but we realised she had this genetic defect and for a long time we tried to work out what the mechanics of it were and we in fact eventually sourced the DNA particular mutation, which occurs in a very few families in this country. But overall, mutations like this occurs in different ways, in different sorts of pregnancies, not infrequently, but in this case, her mutation was very difficult to deal with.

But after eight years of trying, she attempted to have more pregnancies because she desperately wanted to have a baby that was free of disease. The risk to her, of course, would be having another baby that might be handicapped. And that, of course, would be an immense hardship for that, for that family. That's one of the big problems, actually, often with people who try to terminate or deal with these sorts of conditions. Anyway, she she eventually had about a dozen pregnancies, and eventually we eventually put back an embryo back into her uterus, which we thought was normal, was a great deal of resistance to this kind of procedure in Parliament at the time.

But she had a live baby who fortunately was well and was a boy. Now, that's another example. But it's also fair to say that there are many situations where you have obstetric abnormalities. For example, a baby that is born with very severe skeletal abnormalities that can be sometimes unknown, or a woman who doesn't report to have her baby for whatever reason during pregnancy until screening is too late and hasn't had ultrasound or any other care that happens in amongst poor families generally, it's actually inevitable in any society, however good your medical practice might be.

And of course, sometimes, of course, suddenly close to term, these women are found to have an abnormal of abnormal pregnancy in her uterus, which actually prevent labour being successful. If caesarean section would result, probably in a dead baby. But alternatively, of course, sometimes these babies have been what we call morcellated. That is, you actually try to disintegrate them because actually it's the only way you can save the mother's life if she's critically ill at that stage. This is a very, very serious issue.

And unless one fully understands that these things are possible, one has to recognise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually you cannot. I'm sorry. Some people. Baroness Nicholson greatest respect for the noble Lord, and I respect for the noble Lord, and I thank him for giving way. I have the greatest respect for the noble the greatest respect for the noble Lord. I wonder, is he going to give way? Thank you. I just wanted to say that the situations which he describes are all provided for in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Abortion Act. Thank you very much indeed for your questions, because I appreciate your giving me a rest briefly during a very emotional speech in my case, and I apologise for it being an emotional speech. But actually, when you have actually dealt with patients like this very frequently for many years, you forget exactly how serious this can be. I I've seen many, many women requesting terminations of pregnancy at all stages of their pregnancy, even very early, even sometimes after in vitro fertilisation to get pregnant.

That's an extraordinary issue. You wouldn't expect that to happen, but actually it happens throughout pregnancy that women have such serious problems which may not show up in the kind of psychological problem that has been described. But I don't believe any woman goes through a termination of pregnancy lightly, and certainly does not want to damage herself and do her own abortion. I think that's an extremely rare situation, and I think the risk here is that we are trying to make law, which is just impractical in the real sense of the word.

When we have such a range of different syndromes and the population, where in fact we cannot diagnose pregnancy all the time and never will be able to in people, for example, who live in very, very poor or otherwise very serious circumstances that are in fact of poor or damaged.
17:02
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> The debate that we've just been having illustrates perfectly, if I may say so, why the noble Lord Lord may say so, why the noble Lord Lord Verdirame amendment is so apt, because his amendment would insert because his amendment would insert a requirement for Attorney General consent before a criminal proceedings could be instituted in these cases, and that consent would require the Attorney General to examine all the circumstances. The difficult cases we've been discussing in detail.

Very briefly, I have a few comments. As we've heard, clause 191 arose from an amendment to the bill in the other place, but astonishingly received less than two hours debate. As I understand it, it was approved without evidence sessions, yet it would be a major change to abortion law, given that polling apparently reveals that a mere 1% of the public support abortion up to birth, and having regard to the scant debate in the other place, I'm hesitant about making such a radical change to abortion law.

But the noble Lord Lord Verdirame amendment is the perfect solution. It's a compromise. It's a balanced amendment which maintains the existing criminal offence but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognises there may be more finely balanced cases. So this is not about abortion up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So this is not about abortion up to birth, because the 1967 Abortion Act still stands. I think it's Act still stands. I think it's really important that noble Lords try to be accurate in how they try to be accurate in how they describe this. I'm not disputing anything the noble Lord says, except that it is not the case that except that it is not the case that this is about abortion up to birth. This is about 1967 staying in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is about not criminalising women, is it not? Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. This does not detract from the fact that the amendment 456 would fact that the amendment 456 would create a robust filter through which prosecutions would have to go before instituting criminal before instituting criminal proceedings. That would be the consent of the attorney general without that consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doesn't mind. Can we just clarify what we're talking about? I'm tempted to say those that are putting forward this amendment are living in a world of fiction, but I'm not so rude to suggest that I might. Not even suggesting that they're misguided. I think all these amendments and proponents of are doing this with a total conviction that wrong will be done if this amendment gets through. So let's just address what wrong will be done. The wrong that will be done is a woman may try to abort or kill a baby at a late gestation or an early gestation.

The criminality is the same because she's doing so outside the 1967 act. But yes, that will be the case. But that is not what the problem is. The problem is that innocent women, hundreds of innocent women, are wrongly accused of doing a criminal act and they're sent for police investigation. Some one person sent to jail, but others of the 100 that were mentioned by Baroness noble Baroness Thornton, ten of the 100 further investigations were carried out and they were then taken to court.

So the problem is that we are actually addressing and I'm sorry, I know the the whip is trying to accelerate me, but we can't accelerate unless I can address the issues that are raised. And my view is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All apologies. Can I remind members of your Lordships' House that interventions are short and sweet? But there are, because this sweet? But there are, because this is Committee stage, people can participate in the debate at their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chosen point. My. Just to conclude, I really haven't got long comments on this. haven't got long comments on this. The Attorney General is there in the such such cases like this to examine whether something illegal examine whether something illegal and wrong has occurred or not, and he could withhold his consent for a prosecution if he considered that that was not the case, he'd look at the particular circumstances he or she would act quasi judiciary and independently of government.

So the amendment 456, in my view, strikes a perfect balance and should give reassurance to women who have good cause to have a late termination while preserving the criminal offence. For those cases where a late abortion cannot be justified. It therefore meets clause 191 halfway, and I would urge fellow peers to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Oates in I rise to speak to the noble Lord. I'm trying to get in for the before the noble Lord sits down. before the noble Lord sits down. Can I just clarify something in Can I just clarify something in relation to the amendment? Very often the women that we're talking about are not prosecuted at all. They don't end up in court. The They don't end up in court. The problem is that the process is the punishment, as we know in any other instance.

So how does the noble Lord deal with the fact that for the majority of women that we're talking about, which is still a small group, that actually they're having police raids when they've maybe just had a baby, they've just a 19 year old who just gave birth, didn't even know that a young teenager didn't even know that she was pregnant. There's a police raid. Her family are completely disrupted. She's completely distraught and traumatised. And that process, by the way, went on for six years before she was cleared.

Your amendment or this amendment will not solve it, will it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I, I, I can't talk to that sort of case because that sounds sort of case because that sounds bad. That sounds terrible. I entirely agree, but the police are entirely agree, but the police are there to investigate. That's what their job is. They have to do it according to rules, codes of according to rules, codes of practice. And if the system works properly, that sort of case should properly, that sort of case should shouldn't arise. But there is, at least in this amendment, a filter before any criminal prosecution could be instituted.
17:08
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 460, tabled by the noble Baroness Stroud, who very much regrets she's unable who very much regrets she's unable to be here today, and to which I am pleased to be a signatory. I also want to acknowledge the support of Lord Frost, who unfortunately can't be here this afternoon, and of course Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, who will speak later. Amendment 460 reintroduces mandatory in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed. It is a common sense amendment that protects women and ensures good practice.

Amendment 460 also offers a more satisfactory solution to the supposed problem. We are told lies behind clause 191, the small number of prosecutions that have taken place in recent years of women who have induced their own abortions beyond the statutory time limit. These prosecutions have taken place because abortion providers have been able to send abortion pills by post to women without reliably assessing their gestational age, including to those who have claimed to be under the legal limit of 24 weeks, but in reality were not.

Indeed, the two most high profile cases highlighted by supporters of clause 191 would not have been able to take place if gestational age had been properly assessed in a face to face consultation. Carla Foster was found guilty of an illegal abortion at 32 to 34 weeks gestation, after admitting to deliberately misleading the UK's largest abortion provider, Bpas, about her gestational age, telling them she was seven weeks pregnant. Nicola Parker was charged with an illegal abortion after the UK's second largest abortion provider, Marie Stopes, sent her pills, even though she was over the legal limit.

She was acquitted after telling the court that she was unaware of how far through her pregnancy she was. And it is remarkable that one of our leading abortion providers should respond to their own mistakes in sending pills to women beyond the legal limit, through a scheme for which they lobbied and for which they benefit. By trying to push for even more radical laws that minimise accountability. The solution to such cases is not to decriminalise self-administered abortions up to birth, as clause 191 proposes, which endangers women and renders the 24 hour time limit largely toothless.

Such a course would be irresponsible and widely out of step with public opinion. Polling has found that only 16% of the public support the removal of offences that make it illegal for women to induce their own abortions after the legal time limit, with a clear majority supporting the current legal deterrent. And for that reason, I support the noble Baroness Monckton amendment to remove clause 191 from the bill. The obvious better solution to all of this is to restore in-person appointments before women can obtain abortion pills.

Such appointments were the norm before the Covid pandemic, but in response to campaigning from the same groups behind clause 191, the Pills by Post scheme was introduced when the pandemic began, although many had significant misgivings based on concerns that later proved prescient about how this was rushed through without without due process, and suspected it was a thinly disguised ruse to bring in such a scheme permanently. One could perhaps at least understand the logic. During a pandemic. It was never the intention, however, that pills by post abortions would be permanent, and in February 2022, the government announced that the scheme would end after 70% of respondents to a public consultation called for its immediate end.

However, amidst late night machinations in this House not too dissimilar, I note to the way clause 191 was admitted, it was added to the Crime and Policing Bill and the other Place amendment was tacked on to the Health and Care Bill at the 11th hour, making the scheme permanent for England and Wales. Shortly afterwards, however, story started emerging of exactly the kind of incidents many of us were so concerned about demonstrating how pills by posting dangerous women and weakens the safeguards in our abortion laws.

Amendment 460 offers the House a chance to undo a critical aspect of this law change. Under the amendment, women would still be able to take pills at home should they wish, but not without the safeguard of a prior face to face consultation with a medical professional and the three principal reasons why restoring this safeguard, or should I say returning to former best practice is essential. Firstly, it would enable reliable gestational age checks before at home abortions can take place.

This is the primary reason why recent court cases have happened, and accurate gestational age check ought to be the bare minimum we expect of abortion providers who receive a reported average five £580 of taxpayers money per abortion, an increase of 42% in the five years since pills by post scheme come in, even though their costs have been slashed by the removal of in-person appointments and in-person gestational age checks would not only prevent women from wilfully misleading providers about their gestation, but also protect women who may mistakenly believe they are in the early stages of pregnancy but are actually further along.

Secondly, reinstating the in-person appointments would protect women from the significant health risks that accompany taking abortion pills beyond the legal limit. Reliable gestational age checks protect women, since at home abortions are only permitted up to ten weeks gestation because of the increased dangers to women of taking pills beyond the early weeks of pregnancy. Indeed, the introduction of pills by post has led to a significant spike in medical complications, the express newspaper reported. A study based on FOI requests to NHS trusts that suggests that more than 10,000 women.

That's 1 in 17 women who took pills, had to receive hospital treatment following the use of abortion pills in England between April 2020 and September 2021, which was after the time that the post the Pills by Post scheme was introduced, amendment 460 would not only allow reliable gestational age checks and an assessment of health risks, but also protect women from coercion and abuse. Private in-person appointments allow clinicians to confirm in a safe setting why a woman really does wish to go ahead with an abortion, or if she is being coerced.

Telemedicine is inadequate since it's impossible to know if an abuser is lurking in the background. And we spent a long time talking about this on Friday in terms of assisted dying, and the same process should be gone through in relation to abortion pills. This as a proud Northern Irish peer, I do want to talk to the fact that Northern Ireland is often held up as the best place now because of what happened to us in relation to the abortion legislation. Let me let me address that, because it would this would simply bring England and Wales into line with the system in Northern Ireland, because we do not have the pills by post scheme, quite apart from the fact that decriminalisation was imposed on Northern Ireland inappropriately, quite disgracefully imposed on Northern Ireland without a democratic mandate via the cynical hijacking of another unrelated bill.

What is being proposed in this bill is not equivalent to, but actually more extreme than, the radical law we now have in Northern Ireland, the important distinction being that Northern Ireland doesn't have a pills by post scheme. It is. It is the proposed combination of decriminalising women alongside the continuation of the pills by post scheme, which is doubly dangerous and irresponsible, my Lords. And it's somewhat galling that those of us who had that imposed upon us in Northern Ireland as a basis of the fact that we weren't being discriminated against and had the same access to abortion as the rest of the UK, people are now claiming that women in the rest of the UK suffered discrimination, because the law in Westminster is now not as extreme as that that was imposed in Northern Ireland.

So, in conclusion, my Lords, there is significant public support for amendment 460. Pauline, reported in The Telegraph last June, found that two thirds of women supported a return to in-person consultation, while just 4% and tiny minority were in favour of continuing with the status quo. So Pills by Post has been an experiment that has gone wrong, and it's time we reverse the scheme.
17:18
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, Lords, before the noble Lady sits down. >> Difficult issue. >> And it poses an exceptionally difficult issue because of the. Conflicting interests which cannot, Conflicting interests which cannot, in my view, be balanced. The first is that under existing law, there are many, many women who have recently suffered miscarriages and who are subject to distressing and intrusive investigations when they have not acted unlawfully and however sensitive the investigation, which is carried out by the police, it will inevitably be intrusive and it will inevitably be distressing to the woman concerned.

That's the first interest. On the other hand, I think we have to recognise that there will be women who terminate their pregnancies at a late stage for impermissible reasons, such as was mentioned by the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham. And indeed, I think we have to recognise that if clause 119191 is enacted, there may well be more such cases. So these are two conflicting interests, and I'm very doubtful that either of the proposed compromises is a solution to this problem.

That is, Viscount Hailsham identification of further defences or Lord Verdirame proposal of a requirement for the consent of the Attorney General, and the reason why neither of them works is because they will not prevent the investigations of women who have recently suffered the loss of their child. No view can be taken on whether the defences identified by Viscount Hailsham apply, or whether it's right and proper for the Attorney General to give his consent to a prosecution, unless the facts and circumstances of the case are known.

So the investigation has to take place and it will inevitably be distressing to the woman concerned. So it does seem to me that we simply have to make a policy choice here. And it's a choice between two evils the evil of the investigation of many, many women in very distressing and sensitive circumstances when they've acted perfectly lawfully, or allowing the women who've acted improperly not to be prosecuted. And we will each have our view on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what is the greater evil, and my and my. Consideration that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration that. The noble Lord perhaps should address. And that is the value that Parliament should place on human

**** Possible New Speaker ****

life. Parliament should place a value on human life, but it should also on human life, but it should also should it not place a value on the interests of the unfortunate women who have, in the most distressing of circumstances, lost the child that they are carrying. So to talk about the value of human life doesn't answer the profound dilemma which Parliament faces in addressing clause 191. There are two evils here, and the question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how we best address the problem. My Lord, I'd like. To ask.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask. The Lord Pannick is. He suggesting that where. Sensitive matters are investigated, we should change the law? Let me refer to it. Say the case of a refer to it. Say the case of a coroner investigating a death at home, and under which I can cite an example only last Saturday of a friend of mine who died at home of natural causes. But his wife and family had an investigation and understood it was par for the course.

They were very upset that the death of their father and the husband and husband, but nonetheless the law was required to investigate suspicious deaths even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the most sensitive circumstances. Take the noble Lady's point, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take the noble Lady's point, and I very much sympathise with those who have been bereaved and who face such an investigation. But I think such an investigation. But I think there is a profound difference in what we are considering here, which what we are considering here, which is an investigation of the woman who has just lost the child she is carrying and who is being investigated with a view to a the real possibility of a criminal prosecution of her.

And I think we have to recognise that a woman in those circumstances is particularly vulnerable, is particularly sensitive, and we have to weigh that interest against what I accept is the real concern that there will be women who have acted improperly and unlawfully, who will get away with their criminality and my position, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Lord for giving way. I just want and I say this as a I just want and I say this as a signatory to amendment 50 456, I wonder if what the noble Lord wonder if what the noble Lord describes and with which I have a great deal of sympathy would be ameliorated in terms of that. The distress of the investigation, if distress of the investigation, if the AG were to adopt guidance, and that guidance was set out with strict criteria that would at least resolve, remove or ameliorate the risk of the distress of these investigations can cause, the Attorney General can define very narrowly circumstances in which the police would be entitled to do that.

Can he not? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He can, but as I've already said, the difficulty is that, however sympathetic the guidance, the circumstances of the woman circumstances of the woman concerned have to be investigated in order to identify whether her. in order to identify whether her. Can I just finish the sentence, whether her case is a case that whether her case is a case that falls within those particular criteria and therefore the damage that is done to the woman who has recently lost the child is caused, however sensitive the investigation and whatever the criteria, that's the problem I willingly give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble and Lord says there is a profound difference. However, there are circumstances and maybe there are circumstances and maybe others are aware where parents lose a child in the home very young to a child in the home very young to sudden infant death syndrome, and in certain of those circumstances, the police do have to come through the police do have to come through the door. The police do have to do the most. So there is actually no no profound difference there.

no profound difference there. Unfortunately, we do need to investigate things sensitive, and that is not a reason to not change the law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely understand and accept that the police will investigate that the police will investigate many alleged possible offences in highly sensitive circumstances, but highly sensitive circumstances, but the issue that arises for Parliament, for your Lordships House in particular today, is House in particular today, is whether or not we should adopt special criteria where the special criteria where the sensitivity and the distress relates to a woman who has recently lost the child that she is carrying and is very difficult in my view, obviously not an expert on this.

Women in the House will have a stronger view than I do, but I can understand the the real and particular and damaging concern that arises where a woman who's carried her child for however many months loses that child, and she's then the subject of a criminal investigation, it's difficult to imagine anything that's more distressing to the woman concerned in those circumstances. And the House. The Committee, therefore, has to take a view on this and my current view, although I recognise as I've the noble Lord, wishes to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble and learned Lord is making a very reasonable case. But isn't it really an issue of proportionality and balance? He talks about the level of distress, talks about the level of distress, doesn't didn't really answer the point made by my friends Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Berridge. But Lawlor and Baroness Berridge. But the fact of the matter is, this has affected approximately 100 women in terms of criminal investigations, terms of criminal investigations, as against 1.5 million abortions since 2020.

So that is a that is an important point to make in terms of making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the committee will take its own view on whether I've answered the questions that have been put to me. I don't think that been put to me. I don't think that a reference to 1.5 million abortions really takes the argument abortions really takes the argument any further forward at all. My current view, and I recognise the difficulties of this, and each member of the committee will have member of the committee will have their own view. But my current view is that the nature of the investigations, the distress that they they cause, the unlikelihood that they are going to lead to a prosecution is the paramount consideration.

And I therefore see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Watts. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. To speak to amendment 459C to which my name is attached. Now I very much support clause 191, which I believe would modernise our society. But amendment 459C would halt ongoing criminal
17:27
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
investigations and prosecutions for repeated abortion fences offences no matter when committed, and this would tighten up clause 191 on technical grounds. It would stop ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions for repeated offences, no matter when they were committed, because currently clause 191 only applies to actions after the bill becomes law. Now we are aware of multiple women who have been reported to the police by medical professionals in the months since the House of Commons voted in support of clause 191, there was a clear signal from that vote.

It passed 397 votes to 137 votes. That members of Parliament wanted women to stop being targeted, and existing guidance obtained from FOI requests indicates that Parliament cannot rely on police and prosecutors to make the decision to discontinue ongoing cases without a clear legislative process, so this would provide clarity and make it clear for everyone. I also want to say that I lend my support to amendment 461, which my noble friend spoke about. This is about pardoning women with criminal records for abortion offences in line with the Turing pardon.

I think it also chimes with the scandal of young women who were the victims of the Pakistani grooming scandal, many of whom ended up with criminal records, which, I am sure we will all agree was unforgivable here. Now, many of us in this House have spoken up bravely and passionately about the grooming gang scandal and talked about the plight of those young women and girls and how vulnerable and how alone they were. Well, let me tell you, many of the women who seek an abortion outside the law are often the same girls and young women who face very similar circumstances.

They are desperate. They have often been groomed, abused, violently attacked and raped, and they find themselves in very isolated situations. They do not have a loving partner. They do not have a lovely, warm family. They don't trust the state at this point. Clause 191. And these amendments will not in any way change abortion time limits, as we have heard, and nor should they or provisions in any way. What I think this clause will do is stop very vulnerable young women and girls getting hounded by the state for ending a pregnancy.

And I have to say, I am a great fan of Baroness Monckton. We have spoken together on debates before, particularly around special educational needs, but I was shocked at the comparison between a foetus and slavery. I do think that the tone of that was wrong, given what slave women went through particularly often, their children were ripped away from them before they even separated from the umbilical cord. So I would ask her to reflect on those comments. Now. Clause 191 is a simple and principled stance, which I think reflects the strong position in the House of Commons, and I just feel very strongly that it is not acceptable in this day and age to have women, particularly young women.

And I just do make this point. I look around this house and I don't want to be accused of age discrimination in any way, but they are, you know, the people who are debating this, particularly the older gentlemen in this house, they are very, very far removed from the lived reality of women, particularly young women, who find themselves in. I'm sorry that that that I feel very strongly about this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have great respect for the noble Baroness, and I was delighted to see her come to the house, but I to see her come to the house, but I would think it would be in keeping to withdraw an amendment which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw an amendment which could be misinterpreted as ages and genders. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I, I, I hear her point, but I think it's really important because I think the outside world looks I think the outside world looks upon this house, and they will look at some of the comments that have been made, and they will look around, they will look at the age profile. And that's OK. That's not a that's not it's the truth. I mean, I'm just looking around at who we are and we have many wonderful, wonderful, wonderful people with great wisdom and expertise.

But we are talking about a group of women here who are not, I would say, adequately represented in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. That is the point. I was trying to make. Agree that we are all part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree that we are all part of the same human race, and here in this House we must legislate on this House we must legislate on behalf of everybody and not legislate as if we were gender blind about who we are as legislators, but in the interests of society at large. And I know the of society at large. And I know the Labour noble Lady would agree that we must always consider the most vulnerable. And this debate is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

partly about who is the most vulnerable in this matter. I absolutely agree with her that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with her that we must think about who is the most vulnerable, but I think the point that I would like to make here is that I would like to make here is that we have heard a lot of language about the rights of the unborn child, but as Lord Pannick unborn child, but as Lord Pannick said, what about the rights of the living woman? What about the rights living woman? What about the rights of the living woman, often a younger woman who has found herself in the most distressing of circumstances, as I said, raped part of a terrible domestic violence situation where she doesn't feel like she can, has much support and she feels very alone because and I really think this is an important point to make.

I think so few women take joy from having an abortion, particularly a late term abortion. I don't think women do it lightly with a skip in their step to try and go on a holiday or anything like that. It is a very visceral experience. It is an emotional experience. It's a very physical experience. We have heard from eminent members of the medical profession about the physical toll that it takes on a woman's body, and I just want to carry on with with my speech.

And I do think that we have to understand how vulnerable a lot of these women are. We heard an example earlier from a colleague about a woman who went into premature labour in the home. Seven police officers searched her bins before the paramedics arrived. She wasn't allowed home for a week because her house was considered to be a crime scene. She wasn't allowed contact with her partner. Her forensic samples eventually showed no trace of abortion drugs, but she remained under police investigation for a year, and she was only allowed limited supervision with her baby, who had survived that birth.

Despite the very traumatic circumstances. There's another case study that I wanted to read because I think the human stories are very important here. Laura was at university and she was the mother of a toddler when she pled guilty to ending her pregnancy using illegal drugs. She was also in a very abusive relationship, and her partner told her not to go to a doctor under any circumstances, so she was very much left to her own devices. Now. She ended up being sentenced to two years in prison.

The abusive partner was never investigated. Let that sink in. So an abused mother of a toddler is sent to jail while her abusive partner gets off scot free. This is not Kabul, by the way. This is here in the United Kingdom. Now, I don't know about you, but I would want my rather overstretched police services to be investing in crimes like domestic violence or serious crimes. Instead of rifling through the bins of a traumatised woman who has just given birth. I don't know about you, but I would like our rather overcrowded prisons to be housing serious offenders, not abused women who have small children.

I just feel that it's simply morally wrong and an utter waste of police time and criminal justice time and taxpayers money to go after these kinds of distress and vulnerable women. They need psychological help. They need medical help, not a costly investigation. And just as like most of us, I think, in this House are coming to a consensus that the police have been wasting their time on things like non-hate crime incidents. Surely common sense would dictate that going after these women is misguided.

People should be catching criminals. Now, there's been a lot of heated debate around this question. What is a woman? Well, I know what a woman is, and I believe in her right to choose what is best for her reproductive health. I believe in protecting women when they need help the most, not hounding them like a criminal. That might be OK in some repressive regimes far away, Here.
17:37
Lord Bishop of Lincoln Portrait The Lord Bishop of Lincoln (Bishops)
-
-
Here. >> My Lords, first of all, I can say I'm one of those one of those old men, and I'm also a single man, so I have no children of my own. so I have no children of my own. But I'm regularly in contact with very young families through baptism. very young families through baptism. And only last Thursday I was in hospital in an acute cardiac unit for babies anointing A22 week old baby who was who just had open heart surgery. So I'd have had a lot to know about about babies through a very long ministry.

But I also want to say to offer my thanks to Lord Winston for a television series that you oversaw about seeing a pregnancy from from conception to delivery some years ago. And, and in fact, that that series reinforced my conviction about the, the sanctity of life and the fact that here, here we are today in this House, needing to recognise that we're on precious ground. Of course, we're here to want to support women who have been abused and coerced.

I think that the amendment proposed that we should require that the attorney general to intervene. Well, that's probably rather late. If there's been a year's investigation of of a woman in between what we need to see and I I've been investigating this with the Lincolnshire Constabulary, looking to see how police procedure can be changed and invested in, which enables us to move from treating these women as criminals to treating them as as witnesses and victims. Where the police activity is primarily engaged in going after coerces and bad actors.

And so I agree with the noble Lady, that should be how that should proceed. At the same time, you won't be surprised for me to say that I entirely endorse the Church of England's principled position that in in opposing late the abortion of late foetuses who are viable. Otherwise when unless otherwise affected by the abortion Act. What I would like to see is a different way of interpreting the law, differently enforced, which does not, as it were, decriminalise or take away investigation because precisely for the for the protection of women and the preservation of unborn life, and which of us to do that, we need to look urgently about how we how we allow investigations to take place and how we seek to support both a woman, often a woman, going through acute distress and bereavement.

I quite understand the point about about unexplained. Deaths, and we need to make sure that women are protected. But I'm also, as I signed a letter back when 191 first came out with 200 200 other clergy expressing our dismay at the way in which this decriminalisation could so easily lead inadvertently to the. Even if it's only a small number of babies, to the termination of the life of viable children into the future. And that, I'm afraid, I future.

And that, I'm afraid, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could never support. Lord Oates. I'm just wondering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the house. Would allow me. To speak at my extreme age. But having.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having. Always. I have put my name to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Always. I have put my name to the amendment of Viscount Hailsham, and I don't propose to repeat anything that he has said. But anything that he has said. But there are two aspects, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Patel and the
17:41
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
noble Lord. That first of all, noble Lord. That first of all, we're looking in what they're both saying at women who are not guilty saying at women who are not guilty of any offence. And what we're being asked to do is pass a law to protect offenders for the sake of people who are not offenders. And people who are not offenders. And speaking, I have to say, as a former lawyer, I find that an extraordinary proposal. I absolutely understand what Lord Pannick is saying about the difficulty of balancing, but what he's talking about are the innocent, and we are being asked to pass a law that would actually protect the guilty for the sake of the innocent, and it's the first time I think, anyone has pointed this out, and I do find it rather extraordinary that we are being asked to look at women who have suffered a stillbirth or who have suffered a terminal, an abortion, not at their request, but because it's happened at a very late stage, who are now being investigated by the police.

And 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 going by post, the police are now investigating to a greater extent. It does seem to me and the amendment that the Viscount Hailsham and I have put forward, particularly in relation to those who are suffering domestic abuse, it looks to me as though the police, and I'm very relieved to hear that the right reverend Prelate is going to get Lincolnshire to have a look at this.

What we're also being asked to say is because the police are taking a year treating women extremely badly in the process, we should change the law, but surely we should be looking at the guidance to the police. We should find out. Why are the police not looking at potential abusers? Why are the police not investigating the partner as well as the woman? And we're being told again and again that the partners are not being investigated. The woman is being investigated.

It's taking a year or longer, sometimes some appalling case of six years. But that is the failure of the police. We know they're overstretched, but it is an appalling failure, particularly if they don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigate. And what. The noble Baroness with her, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness with her, you know, outstanding history in the know, outstanding history in the law, recognise that women and men are not treated equally in the criminal justice system, nor by the criminal justice system, nor by the nor in police investigations. And it's the case that women, when it's the case that women, when they're convicted of an offence, are often sent to prison for offences where men are not sent to prison, that women are sent to prison for longer for the same issues than men, that there are many, many women in prison.

That men, when men would not be put in prison. And exactly the same is the case in investigation. We have to ask the question, why did it take six years? We have to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question why the police aren't. Intervention. We have to ask the question about why there are these inequities. I other people have made longer interventions. I don't know why I'm being battered in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know why I'm being battered in this way. Grateful for clarification. Order. That was an intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. That was an intervention. Quite finished. All I wanted to say. I understand exactly what the noble Lady is saying. I wasn't a criminal judge. I don't think I ever sent a woman to prison. And so I'm not qualified to speak on those issues. All I'm really asking the house to reflect is we are principally being asked to change the law to support those who are not convicted or are not guilty of offences, and because the police offences, and because the police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not behaving as they should. Two questions please. Why does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two questions please. Why does the noble Lady think 50 countries have found this not a problem? Abortion is decriminalised in virtually every country that has virtually every country that has abortion legislation since the 67 act. That's the first question. So it's not a question. I'm just it's not a question. I'm just wondering why. That's why the noble Lady thinks that's a problem. And the second question is, why does the noble Lady think that adding further complications which the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment does would make this any better? Well, as to the you. Can't have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as to the you. Can't have two interventions. And the first two interventions. And the first question, I don't know the answer. I mean, I haven't looked at what goes on in other jurisdictions. I goes on in other jurisdictions. I don't know how well it works or whether it doesn't work well. Secondly, in relation to this, it Secondly, in relation to this, it seems to me that the there should be a lot of changes in the way in which this is all dealt with.

And if the police investigated the man as well as the woman, one would investigations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Know my Lords, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know my Lords, my Lords. Moving my amendment. My my. Lords. It's it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's it's. It's Committee stage and everybody can have can have a turn as long as they speak to the state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as long as they speak to the state speaking limit. So perhaps we could just have some, some ordering taking around the house. I would just be grateful. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just be grateful. And I will be brief to get a clarification.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the government whips us up. Could he please remind the House that interventions have to be House that interventions have to be short and brief and can't go on into speeches? And can he also remind the House that those who remind the House that those who have signed their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those who have not? Yes. To answer the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To answer the noble Baroness point well, firstly, there are no points of order in our self regulated house. Secondly, I think she makes the point of our interventions very ably. And thirdly, as I said, there are there is time for there is time for everyone in committee to both move their amendments and to speak, to speak to other amendments. So I suggest that we just take it in, take it in a reasonable order. I'll leave it to the house to who speaks next.
17:49
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'd be, I would be, I'd be. I will be short. I just would be will be short. I just would be grateful for a clarification. Now, I strongly believe in women's rights, including reproductive rights, including reproductive rights. And I do not want women in distress subjected to criminal investigation, if at all, avoidable. But I am struggling to understand why clause 191 is considered not to amend the Abortion Act as the noble Lady Baroness Thornton, I think, among others, asserts.

I did note that noble Lady Baroness Foster called it, said it would be toothless if clause 191 goes through. Now, I what if I'm have I understood properly that other people, other than the woman concerned, the pregnant woman concerned, would still be committing a criminal offence if they gave any kind of assistance? And that is why it is considered that the Abortion Act is not, in fact amended. But I did notice that the noble Lady Baroness Hazarika referred to repealed abortion offences.

So what do we seem to be relying on? Is that a the woman herself would, would simply be would be regarded as decriminalised. Now, I'm not generally terribly happy about decriminalisation. I'm not really happy with it. In relation to drugs, I prefer dotting i's and crossing t's and having either legalisation or or or or or not legalisation, but have have I, have I understood that correctly? Maybe it's only the note when we come to the noble Lady, the the Minister, that I will fully get that clarification, but is that what it relies on, that you are not amending the Abortion Act 1967, which I broadly support? I think, you know, it is a compromise.

I actually have never supported the simple, but I think simplistic a woman's right to choose because there are other considerations. And so I support the Abortion Act as a compromise on a difficult subject, as I think many people do. But have I then can I just get that clarification that that the thesis, the Abortion Act is not being amended is that you would only you would decriminalise the woman concerned while supposedly leaving the rest of the Abortion Act.

As it is. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment does is to disapply the Abortion Act so far as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mother and late term abortions are concerned. Well, I have this noble Lord, Viscount Hailsham, that I'm not terribly attracted by his amendment, but but I am rather more attracted by that of the noble Lord. Lord army. Though I've heard the criticisms of the noble Lord Lord Pannick about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pannick about that. Just the noble Lady. Clause 191 is perfectly clear in that no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. It simply doesn't affect the criminal offences that are committed by any person, whether a doctor or otherwise, who assists a woman. And there are, of course, precedents for that distinction. In the Suicide Act Suicide Act 1961, the act of suicide is lawful, but it's unlawful to assist.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do grasp that that that that point. But although I thank the noble Lord Lord Pannick for noble Lord Lord Pannick for assisting me, but but in a broader sense, can it be relied on that sense, can it be relied on that clause 191 would not have a sort of Wash effect over the Abortion Act 1967, which has been subjected to various attempts to amendment, but various attempts to amendment, but which has sort of largely held the court since 1967.

I just wonder how we can be sure that this decriminalisation of the woman concerned. I understand all the very good reasons for it would not ultimately lead to an amendment of the Abortion Act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord, I. My Lords Speaker, I rise to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Speaker, I rise to speak in support of my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend. Here explained, is unable to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here explained, is unable to be here today, so I will pick up some points from her interventions. Were she here to make them now, my Lords,
17:53
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
she here to make them now, my Lords, if we want to change the law, that clause 191 that many say clause 191 will improve the situation for women's bodily autonomy. I am all for that. But after a considered debate, which we have had in the past, when we've amended the 67 Abortion Act to bring it into conformity with changing medical science and social attitudes. So it is not as if we're stuck in aspic here. This bill is not the place to do so, as the breath of amendments that this clause has attracted demonstrates, I'm going to concentrate mainly on the Covid era regulations, which permitted the obtaining of pills by post at any point of gestation, whereby previously later stages required face to face consultation between the pregnant woman and doctors.

Under the Abortion Act, this may have been necessary at the point of lockdown, and it's a failure on the part of the then government not to have contemplated a review after lockdown ended. But my Lords, as things stand now, clause 191 will facilitate changes where decriminalisation of late stage and full term abortions may well create additional dangers to women's health. As pointed out at Second Reading by numerous Lords here. But it will also additionally open the door to coerce women to seek late term abortions against their own wishes.

Baroness the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss is not in her seat. But that, I think, is the point that she was trying to get to in her intervention. Now, if there isn't any sanction in law, what reason can one give a controlling partner who insists that it is perfectly permissible in law? And that is what decriminalisation suggests, my Lord, that there is nothing to prevent the woman from aborting late term through the convenience of pills by post, virtually no questions asked.

So you have the perverse effect that, alongside the certainty of greater autonomy for women, we may well see the risk of coercive control and deception. I am sure that is not what the movers of this amendment sought. In the other place, my noble friend Baroness Wolf made the point that while home based abortions have become common, they normally use two drugs in the forms of pills. My sterone, which blocks progesterone needed in pregnancy but does not kill the foetus, and misoprostol, which basically causes cramping, bleeding, and the emptying of the uterus.

If taken early in pregnancy, the result is effectively the same as an early miscarriage. And in England Wales, it's allowable for abortions up to ten weeks of gestation. The pills are advertised as simple to use and as creating early miscarriages with bleeding and perhaps some bits of tissue, so the descriptions are reassuring and encouraging. However, the reality may be very different and life threatening to the woman who, for whatever reasons that they take for wishing to terminate the pregnancy, may not appreciate the complications.

Pills by post require no such safeguards, but the 67 act put into place other than a phone or virtual call, which is the least satisfactory method of ascertaining stress, emotional distress or indeed coercive pressure. So I want to just say a few. I want to share with the House some experiences of of emotional pressure. Noble Lords will be aware of the case, or perhaps they're not of Stuart Warby in December 2024. I'm grateful to the prosecuting counsel, Edward Vickers KC of Redland Chambers, for giving me some background information to this case, I should add, before I say anything further, that the victim is subject to lifelong anonymity.

In December 2024, the judge summed up the details of the case. A central aspect of that was that the victim married the defendant after the commencement of the pregnancy. He wished to terminate the pregnancy, but she wished to keep her baby with or without him. He set about securing the termination without her knowledge, and used a female friend to obtain abortive drugs from an online private clinic. The judge pointed out that he must have known that this was dangerous for his wife, as he knew she was many weeks past the time limit to use the drugs safely.

When he received the drugs, he first added My Festool prune in the food and drink. The next day. He told her he wanted to buy to try something sexually new in bed, which involved blindfolding her and tying her up. The real purpose was to insert the second type of medication, misoprostol, into her vagina. Shortly after he had done that, she became unwell and the next day she suffered a miscarriage, losing the baby that she so badly yearned for.

The judge's remarks explain that the offence of administering administrating poison to bring about a miscarriage was made more serious by Mr. Warby's prolonged research and planning over many weeks, and by his involving others by bringing about a miscarriage and by the devastating effect it had on his then wife's dream of having a child. My Lords, the sorry, sorry tale attempts to demonstrate that it is not only, as Lord Pannick said, the woman who may wish to terminate her pregnancy or the unborn child.

There is a further factor here, which is the partner, the husband or other members of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family who may seek coercion. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for giving way. This is a Lady for giving way. This is a shocking story, but nothing in clause 101 would affect the clause 101 would affect the criminal liability of the man who behaved in such a disgraceful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

manner. I find that very interesting, and I'm sure it's it's going to be a welcome debate among lawyers. a welcome debate among lawyers. I'll look into that and take that into consideration when I come back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for debate, for with a renewed amendment at Report stage. I'm sorry, this is simply not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, this is simply not a controversial issue because clause 191 says no offence is committed by 191 says no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. It simply doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

own pregnancy. It simply doesn't affect liability of anyone else. Yes. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're coming back to the term terminally ill debate that we had on Friday. Women may well not in this particular case, but may well be coerced by partners to take pills when they wouldn't otherwise have wished to do so. And perhaps those noble Lords are moving. Amendments to do with face to face consultations have that in their minds, whereby a face to face consultation would require deeper insights on the part of medical professionals. Pills by post do not.

I'd like to proceed a little bit further, and then I'll give way to the noble Lady. Now, if we wish to change abortion law, my Lords, we're perfectly entitled to do so as a society. But the this particular clause raises significant questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, even though and I accept that they said on Second Reading that they remain neutral on the clause and that they anticipated a free vote as the clause seeks to repeal section subsection 58 and 59 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

Can the Minister explain how charges could be brought in a case such as Mr. Warby's and others? This was a poisoning and an attempt to procure a miscarriage without the woman's consent, without repealing the offences, as the government hasn't carried out a consultation on this proposed change. How will providers of pills by post be regulated? Further, to ensure that late term pregnancies still carry protections under the Abortion Act and other criminal law? So will the government commit to carrying out an overall review of the extent of the problem with police investigations of these women, and open discussions with the relevant authorities to ascertain how better to focus police interventions? That was the objective of our clause 456, all on all sides of the House.

My Lords, we recognise the distress caused to women by unfounded police intrusiveness intrusiveness, and there must be other measures that could address how that can be done with care. Upholding the rights of women in terms of their bodily autonomy, as well as society's obligations to provide the appropriate medical care for them at this vulnerable point of pregnancy, exists on the one hand, and on the other, we have obligations to the rights of the unborn child. Are, I'm about to say, one more sentence and I will sit down.

Then I'm happy for the noble Ladies, both Baronesses, to intervene. And on the other hand, we have obligations to the rights of the unborn child, as that is what very late term abortions are in terms of viability. These things engage our ethics and responsibilities in law. I suggest that the noble Lady, the Minister, seeks to engage with those of us moving amendments to guide us to how, in this House, we can do both responsibly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady would like to answer the question that if you are being question that if you are being coerced into ending a pregnancy outside the law, and if you report outside the law, and if you report that to the police, you yourself will be investigated for a criminal will be investigated for a criminal offence, how can even though it's quite clear and we know from the quite clear and we know from the court case that actually the man is the person who has coerced you into doing this, how can it be right? Perhaps the noble Lady could say that a woman by going to the police.

And why would she actually under those circumstances? Because at the moment she would be investigated for a criminal offence. Because that's what the law says. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the war, in the in the war case. The woman discovered what had happened to her and did go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

police and was not investigated. Lords, my Lords, please excuse my enthusiasm, but you could see every time I blinked, somebody else every time I blinked, somebody else jumped in. I rise in support of my own amendment for 61B, which is focussed on protecting underage girls. But before I do that, could I pose a few questions to the
18:05
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Minister on the back of the the debate we've had Firstly, there's been an assertion made that there's been an assertion made that this is happening, that there's many, many women being being prosecuted. Could the Minister give prosecuted. Could the Minister give us access to the figures that she's working on to answer that debate? Secondly, is there any proof that the police are targeting women, that that assertion has been made a that that assertion has been made a number of times? Also, what work is the government doing to improve the nature of police investigations? The Right reverend brought that point up, I thought was very well, very well made because surely any woman in this situation should be treated as a victim until there's some very strong evidence that she's anything but a victim.

So what are we doing to to help the police perform their duties better and to speak to the number Baroness Hazarika the notion that you can only represent people that you are of is the one that we should fight very hard. I come from a very poor community and spent my life representing people who have no forbearance. I'm sorry, have no relation to the way I look, where I come from and who I am. And I think that's something we should fight very hard.

In this particular instance. I am a man. I'm a father of two. In, in, in. When you talk about pregnant people, there's at least some idea that a man is 50% of how that situation arose. So I think I do have some stake in the debate. And finally, there is no debate on this side about what a woman is. If somebody is pregnant. In my world, in my world, they are most certainly a woman. I can't envisage any other situation where somebody other than a woman would be pregnant.

I'm happy to take direction from you if you have such things. My Lords, to address this, my amendment is focussed particularly on protecting young girls. My Lords address this gap. I've tabled an amendment for 61B, which introduces a mandatory safeguarding investigation whenever an abortion is performed on a girl under 16. This measure is in the best interests of vulnerable women. It does not impede lawful medical care. It simply ensures that when a child undergoes an abortion, relevant authorities are alerted and must promptly investigate the circumstances.

Specifically, in investigation would seek to determine whether the pregnancy resulted from a criminal offence, for example, rape or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act. Whether the girl was subjected to coercion, exploitation or abuse. Whether any person involved, such as the abuser, may be liable for prosecution under existing laws. One thing I know from my many decades of community work and dealing with vulnerable people in vulnerable situations and investigation free zone is ripe for abuse. If your abuser.

What you need is privacy. This current 191 clause would provide privacy for many abuser and very seriously, the idea that there's a surge of young women who are being investigated, I think needs to be taken into account, because this bill stands and falls on the idea that there's a lot of young women who are under a lot of pressure, because things a lot of pressure, because things that are being suggested. Clause 919199191 of the Crime and Policing Bill was brought about, will bring about the most radical change to abortion laws in in a generation.

And it was done on the back of very little scrutiny and debate in the other place. So I believe it falls to us in this chamber to give it our full, undivided attention. Do you have a question I would pose to the Minister is what level of support is there for this publicly? Now, we've heard that many of the professional bodies support this bill, but do the do the public support this bill? Are they in the same place? Have they been consulted on what this would mean? And I don't mean do they support abortion? I mean, do they support the effect that this bill would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the reading of the bill? I thank the Member for giving way because I can save the Minister way because I can save the Minister here. There was a study in 2023 by the National Centre for Social Research that found the majority of Research that found the majority of people did not want to see women criminalised in the kind of circumstances we're talking about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I thank the noble Baroness, but of course that was the wrong question asked. Let's be very clear. I personally don't want to see anybody criminalised, and I doubt people want to see women who've gone through a very distressing situation be criminalised. But what they probably would want to see is a law that would that that dealt with the balance as identified by our Noble and learned noble and learned Lord over there, across the way, would deal with the balance far better, because currently that question, I believe, was the wrong question to answer.

I table this amendment because I'm very worried about the real world consequences for young women in vulnerable situations who, when they're being coerced, they're abused, would know that there is no investigation even possible. No matter where you stand on the question of abortion, surely you can see the most vulnerable young women should be protected by us, by the law. The noble Baroness Hazarika talked about women who had suffered from the rape gangs. They're exactly the kind of women that I think would have benefited from some kind of investigation.

And as it stands, I believe that 191 will prevent that from happening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to I'm sorry. I rise to speak to my amendment 461 and support the noble Baroness Baroness support the noble Baroness Baroness Monckton amendment to clause 191 CSAM part I put my name to that CSAM part I put my name to that amendment to, as other noble Lords have observed, clause 191 was
18:11
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
have observed, clause 191 was passed in the other place following a very, very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact in moving the amendment, the Member for Gower noted that it was only about ensuring that vulnerable women have the right to help and support. My Lords, I'm sure we all support the provision of appropriate and timely support for a woman considering an abortion. However, it drastically understates the effect of clause 191 regardless of the intent of its mover.

My Lords, we must confront the radical legal reality that this clause removes all deterrents against a woman performing her own abortion up to the very moment of birth. My Lords, how does that ensure that women have the right to help and support the clause? Decriminalises actions by a woman at any stage of her pregnancy, including actions which are criminal under present, under the Offences Against the Person Act and the Infant Life Preservation Act. My Lords, in 1929, they knew that a child who's been in the womb for 28 weeks was capable of being born alive.

Now we know that children born alive at 22 weeks and live in 2020 and 2021, 261 babies were born alive in 22 and 23 weeks before the abortion limit, who survived to be discharged from hospital. Now, why is abortion so distressing? As the noble Lady, Lady Hazarika said, I think it's because by 23 weeks the unborn baby has all its organs, its muscles, its limbs, its bones, its sex organs. It may hear, it makes facial expressions, it responds to loud noises.

It's getting into a pattern of sleeping and waking. It practises breathing and it definitely feels pain. And after that they just keep growing. So proponents of clause 191 have been at pains to say that the Abortion Act is not changed and that the time limits remain the same. But that is not not the reality of this clause. Clause one 91st May not repeal the Abortion Act, but it renders its protections largely symbolic in practice. At present, the act operates as a tightly drawn exception to criminal offences that otherwise prohibit ending a pregnancy, and its force comes from the fact that abortion outside its conditions is unlawful.

Once associated consequences are removed, the framework ceases to be a deterrent or a boundary for conduct, and becomes in effect, merely a regulatory code for providers, albeit with criminal consequences for clinicians who are left untouched. For now, my Lords, it's a profound shift. Time limits, certification requirements, clinical safeguards would no longer operate as meaningful legal limits on women's actions. Those 191 is not an outworking of modernised enforcement. It's a hollowing out of the underlying settlement, which nullifies the protective structure built into the 67 act, particularly its recognition that abortion law is not a matter of personal autonomy, but also about safety, safeguarding and the status of the viable unborn child.

Both lives matter, my Lord. The issue, my Lords, is not whether the Abortion Act still exists on the statute book, it's whether it still performs the function that Parliament intended. Clause 191 leaves the text intact, whilst removing the mechanism that makes it its limits real. I strongly urge noble Lords to support the removal of clause 191 from the Bill. My Lords, it is not just about the decriminalisation of a woman's actions, it's about her safety. My Lords, my questions for the noble Lord, the Minister, as Parliament considers what we do with clause 191, is how does the government think that the woman will achieve the death of the baby? Is a baby? Doctor Caroline Johnson MP and the Other place said that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy is not a suitable or safe medical intervention in later pregnancy.

She told us how it's done in later pregnancy. It's done by foeticide. An injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That's why it's important to know what the gestation is. A woman will hear now, if we pass this, that it's not a crime to abort her baby at any time, because clause 191 doesn't only relate to abortion abortions after 24 weeks, it applies to all abortions. Saying that a woman does not commit an offence if she acts to terminate her own pregnancy, and this will inevitably cause women to think that it can be done to birth, and that the government would not legislate if it were dangerous for her to do so.

Not all women, particularly those who've never had a child, know what to expect in childbirth. A woman, by whatever means. If a woman by whatever means, ends her baby's life in the womb, she still has to deliver it. Having a baby is difficult and painful. I've had five. There's no other way to describe it. The body has to contract to expel the baby from the womb. If the body isn't contracting, drugs are administered wrongly administered. They can cause the contractions to come too fast.

Acutely painful. If issued too slowly, they can be ineffective. So a dead baby must be delivered. It may be too big. She's on her own. It may be too big. It may be lying at the wrong angle. The woman may be unable. I wish to finish my sentence. The woman may or may be unable to deliver it. It may get stuck in the birth canal. If it survived the attempts to terminate its life, it may be born alive as babies still are.

What then? And what of the mother? When one gives birth, one is monitored by doctors to ensure no crises occur. If possible, those crises can include haemorrhage, damage to the womb, the bladder and in worst cases, death. My Lords, if this bill is passed and the mother chooses to terminate her baby other than as provided for in the Abortion Act, she won't be prosecuted. She may have been coerced into it, as we've heard at length, for a variety of reasons, but she may die despite being decriminalised.

She may die,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or she may face life changing injuries. The noble Baroness paints a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness paints a very vivid picture of how traumatic it is for a woman to go through a late is for a woman to go through a late term pregnancy, and I'm sure all of us would agree that nobody would do this lightly. Does that not reinforce why it's so important reinforce why it's so important that the woman would not be in a position where she thought she could be investigated by the police could be investigated by the police at this point, and would go and seek medical advice, safe in the knowledge that she was not potentially going to end up in prison.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there are situations in which the woman in that case under the Abortion Act can seek help, and the Abortion Act can seek help, and I would expect that she would. But there are situations in which she may not. And I simply want to ask may not. And I simply want to ask the government, how do they expect it to happen? Doctors administer these drugs. Doctors look after us these drugs. Doctors look after us in childbirth. We don't do it in childbirth.

We don't do it ourselves. So, my Lords, I want to move to amendment 461 considerable danger associated with 11191 is the activities of abusers and exploiters. The shield, which would be reimposed if telemedicine were stopped, is a requirement for all women considering abortion. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman's privacy. There should not be coerced or to verify that seeking the medication is the person who'll actually take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking.

It's important the medication is not taken by a woman whose pregnancy exceeds ten weeks, the NHS reported in July 2025 that since 2020, 54,000 people, 54,000 women have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from birth pills. Last year, 12,000 alone in removing the criminal status of abortion. We perversely, as the noble and learned Lady, Lady Butler-sloss says we incentivise abusers to pressure vulnerable women into dangerous, isolated and self-administered late term abortions. My amendment 46 one is a safeguard against that, that I hope that noble Lords will be minded to support.

It creates a provision analogous to that found in section two of the Suicide Act 61 creates a special offence of encouraging or assisting a both an abortion which is unlawful under the terms of the Abortion Act. It does not chill medical advice or online information. It requires intent, which is a distinct threshold. Ordinary clinical counselling or neutral provision of information would not meet the test. It does not engage with what or change what is lawful under the Abortion Act. It concerns only unlawful terminations and intentional encouragement or assistance.

If an abortion is lawful, the offence does not arrive. And thirdly, perhaps most importantly, its desired effect is safeguarding vulnerable women. Under the current wording of clause 101, there is a risk that if self aborted self-administering abortion is no longer a crime, the woman can be pressurised. My Lords, by legislating expressly where safeguarding is paramount, by keeping it creating a clear, specific offence, we send a strong protective signal for women. My amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult and coming to consult and to talk to clinicians, etc.

it's a measured reasonableness, necessary response. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
18:21
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> I rise with a certain level of trepidation and fear, and to convey trepidation and fear, and to convey a contribution during this debate, as I not a mother and I've never enjoyed motherhood and therefore I don't have the experiences of many women right across this chamber. But I rise in support, in particular of amendment 46, to which I am pleased to be a signatory, and to which the noble Baroness Foster has already spoken, and the noble Baroness Monckton amendment that clause 191 does not stand part of the bill.

I support amendment 460, because the health risks of obtaining abortion pills without adequate prior in-person checks are now well documented, and I feel that they should. Only if that's the way you support. You do need an ultrasound and you do need an investigation. Let me simply add one further example to those which have already been cited. The Irish Medical Journal published an article in March 2024 explaining how a woman in Ireland nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy after taking abortion pills.

The article reported that the case could have been prevented by an ultrasound if women once again had mandatory in-person scans, it would protect them, allowing ectopic pregnancies and other possible health risks to be picked up more reliably. But as has been noted, the woman is not our only consideration here. And I agree there's a need for the protection of the woman, but also of the unborn child. By allowing clause 191 to stand, we would also be removing the legal safeguards that exist to protect an unborn baby after the point of viability, when a baby could survive outside the womb.

And I contend that this is a radical and unpopular proposal. Indeed, this is an issue that those of us who are pro-life and pro-choice. And in an article for the Times entitled I've always been Pro-Choice, but this is too far. The well known pro-choice commentator Janice Turner wrote, I find it discomforting that a woman could abort a full time baby, full term baby, and face no sanctions. She is not alone. Polling has found in 2024, only 1% of women support abortion up to birth, while just 16% of the public support removing a legal deterrent after the 24 week limit.

And in fact, my Lords, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in our abortion time limits, not permitting permitting women to induce their own abortions up to birth, as would de facto become the case under clause 191. And as a Northern Irish peer. Let me echo also Baroness Foster's earlier comments regarding Northern Ireland, and I was concerned to hear suggestions in the other place. During the truncated Report stage debate on this clause, that there are considerations about whether to introduce pills by post in Northern Ireland.

Also, I am deeply worried about this possibility if supporters of clause 9191 really do wish to bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, as they claim, then can I make a simple suggestion that they ought to support amendment 460, and reintroduce the in-person appointments? We rightly continue to have in Northern Ireland. But, my Lords, let me finish by quoting from the times leading article, published two days after clause 191 passed and the other place, the times view was as follows.

Even the most ardent advocate of a woman's right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. And while women women considering ultra ultra late terminations must and I support them in this regard it and supported with the greatest level of understanding, compassion, sympathy, humanity, the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly. And I know there are different views on that issue right across the chamber, but I hold my view and I respect others views as well who take a different viewpoint.

There has been no great public clamour, I believe, for this change. I agree and very much hope that clause 191 will not remain part of the bill. And I also support amendment 460, to which I am a signatory.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords. I think one of the problems with your argument is that a huge number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your argument is that a huge number of e-SIM. My Lords, I rise to speak, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak, to speak to my amendment 459 and in support of other amendments that have been tabled in this group, in particular, the amendment that clause 191 does not stand part of
18:27
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
clause 191 does not stand part of the bill in the name of the noble Baroness Monckton and amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness Stroud, my Lords, clause 191, were it to become law, would open a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. While these consequences may be unintended, they are not unforeseen. After all, many of us have warned about exactly what would happen if the Pills by post scheme was introduced. Indeed, the only reason we are having this debate today is because, tragically, those warnings proved to be accurate and the supporters of Pill by Post now wish to decriminalise late term self-induced abortions as a result of, and dare I say, to conceive the results of this reckless scheme for which they lobbied.

Those consequences were foreseeable, and if clause 191 makes it onto the statute book, we can foresee what its consequences would be to. While women ending the lives of their unborn children after the 24 week limit may be spared prosecution under the clause, I fear they will not be spared grave resulting dangers to their physical health and the lasting trauma that would accompany such abortions. It is for this reason, and many of the other reasons that have already been set out, that I wholeheartedly support the amendment, that clause 191 should not stand part of the bill and amendment 460 that would reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be obtained should be approved.

However, in bringing forward amendment 459, I wish to draw attention to another, easily foreseeable consequence of clause one nine months. If we remove offences that make it illegal for women to fulfil their own abortions at any gestation and for any reason as clause 191 would do, then there would no longer be any legal deterrent against a woman, a woman performing an abortion for sex selective purposes. To do so would no longer be an offence at any gestation.

While public views on abortion more generally may vary, the public are strongly opposed to sex selective abortion. As I note, they are. As I note, they are also to abortion up to birth. 91% of women support an explicit ban on sex selective abortion. I can think of a few other areas of policy. I can hardly think of any areas of policy for which there is such a comparable consensus. Despite past attempts from supporters of radical abortion abortion laws to suggest that sex selective abortions are not an issue in this country.

We now have definitive government data that confirms that, sadly, this is not the case. Newspapers over the Christmas period reported have the most recently available data published by the Department of Health and Social Care concerning birth ratios of boys and girls by ethnicity, estimated that there may have been approximately 400 sex selective abortions to female foetuses of Indian ethnicity in England and Wales over the five year period from 2017 to 2021. In other words, there were 400 missing girls over just five years in this country from just one ethnic community.

New data suggests this problem has continued in the years since the statistics were produced, and these figures are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. Removing any legal deterrent against abortions outside of the terms of the Abortion Act would make this problem far worse. Indeed, far from protecting women, I would contend that clause 191 would do the opposite. In communities where there is sometimes a preference for a son over a daughter, the removal of any legal deterrent against women performing abortions for sex selective reasons would make it easier, far easier for partners or wider family to pressure women to abort baby girls against their wishes.

The woman would not be able to appeal to a legal deterrent in order to resist doing so. The consequences don't bear thinking about, since many parents only find out the sex of their baby at the 20 week scan. Clause 191 risks creating a situation where women, perhaps under coercion, induce their own abortions. A couple of weeks later, almost six months into pregnancy, giving that increasing number of babies can now survive outside the womb, the outside of the womb, from 22 weeks.

This risks viable babies being aborted purely on the basis of their sex. We currently have a highly unsatisfactory situation where the Department of Health guidance states, and I quote, abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. And yet the Bpas, the UK's largest abortion provider, which has been lobbying in favour of clause 191, says on its website the law is silent on the matter. Reasons of foetal sex is not specifically prohibited by the law.

It is incredible that Bpas is able so clearly to contradict what the government says, and seems to suggest to women that sex selective abortions may be permissible. 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 be become law?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without this clarification? Old lady. How criminalisation of the mother.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the mother. Will provide any protection

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will provide any protection against abortions on sex selective grounds. That's the argument she's making. It appears to me. And how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would criminalisation stop this? The criminalisation is known by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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 illegal. You being one of us, both of us being accused of an illegal act. If I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can, I can I say further. Had one intervention. So. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. To be clear, the noble Lady can take as many or as few interventions as she wishes. Well, that isn't the information

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, that isn't the information that was given earlier, but there we are. I think I've answered the question. Thank you. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. No, I've already had one, and I'm happy with it. Thank you. This is not scaremongering. We only need to look at other countries to foresee what the consequences of decriminalisation, 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 foetuses in favour of having sons.

Evidence of sex selective abortions has also been found in Victoria in 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 parts resulting from sex selective abortion and postnatal sexual sex selection, infanticide, sex selection, abortion in China, arising in part because of the country's one child policy, created enormous demographic challenges within the country, with media reports describing how millions of men have struggled to find a wife in the country. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Except that sex selection has to be done under the auspices of the be done under the auspices of the regulatory authority, the Hfea. And that is illegal in this country and has remained illegal. It would be has remained illegal. It would be very, very difficult clinics to use that technology without without the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support of the Hfea. Could I remind the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I remind the noble gentleman that the noble Lord, I apologise that already there is an issue in this country where Bpas actually suggests online that it is not illegal to have sex selected abortion. So there is some dispute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about that information. My Lord. My Lord, my Lord, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, I got my name to amendment 461. Sorry, I've nearly finished. That was an intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was an intervention. No Baroness Sugg concluding remarks. It's well over ten minutes. It is. I'll just read the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll just read the last paragraph. It's the interventions that's taking time, my Lords. Some of these examples may sound of these examples may sound fanciful or seem extreme, but the worst consequences of a policy rarely announces themselves plainly at first sight. Or we should always pass perfect laws, and we don't. We would be foolish not to learn from evidence in other jurisdictions. I contend that it would be far wiser to reject clause 191 altogether. Doing. Doing so would protect women, both baby girls in the womb and the mothers who carry them.
18:39
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amen. My Lords, I have my name to amendment 461. J to which the noble Baroness Thornton spoke so eloquently. And that's the one that includes that addresses pardoning women who've already been criminalised. I do look forward when clause 191 becomes law to this amendment being part of it. Because as we all know, your Lordships having a criminal record precludes you from some jobs, precludes you from getting visas to some countries. It's a very serious thing. And I think that small amendment is well worthwhile.

The other couple of remarks I just want to make is that I'm sure it must weigh heavily with your Lordships, even those of you who are very doubtful about clause one nine, one of just the overwhelming support from the professional bodies involved. I'm very grateful to those in your Lordships House with experience in this field. But it did strike me that where the Royal College, Royal Colleges of Nursing, midwives, Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and GPS are all behind this bill, then who really are we to raise many of the issues? Now, that's not to say we shouldn't debate the important points.

However, where those involved in delivering healthcare for women are so overwhelmingly supportive, this does seem to me to be the right course. The noble Lord Lord Bailey of Paddington asked about surveys. Well, I'd been. I got one from YouGov, quoting 70% of the public saying that women should not face criminal prosecutions for having abortions outside the set rules. There's been a few comments that I think the lady lady Baroness Monckton raised this. What's the role of this house? Well, the role of this house, I'm glad to say it's undertaken very well this afternoon, but it's not to overturn, as we know, the will of the Commons.

And the vote was three seven, 9 to 1 three seven. The other couple of points I would like to make is that that there are many amendments in this group, one that seem very innocuous, some of which we debated a while ago under Lord Nolan's bill, for example, the requirement to keep statistics, but they're really not innocuous. They're really just a back door into undermining the very idea of clause 191. And the last point I would want to make is something addressed by the Bishop of Lincoln.

I've understood that decriminalisation does not encourage more or later abortion in the countries that have practised it, like Canada, like New Zealand. It's it's not been the case that it's encouraged more or later. Abortion and other noble Lords have made the point very eloquently. Abortion isn't something that you, as a woman just likely choose. It really isn't. I haven't had an abortion myself. I've only had a miscarriage, but that was enough and I happily had two children besides.

But that is enough to tell you just why you wouldn't likely go and choose to do this. So I think that getting rid of clause 191 is really an essential part of moving us into the 21st century and away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the very Victorian attitude that has prevailed up until now. My Lords. My Lords, my Lord, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, my Lord, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord. My amendment 469. In this group, my amendment 469. In this group, my Lords, before coming to discuss the substance of the amendment in this group, one of which four, six, one is in my name, I would like to make a brief observation. In my experience, both in the other place
18:44
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
and now as a member of your Lordships House for a little over three years, the issue we are three years, the issue we are considering today in this group of amendments, and the two which follow, have become increasingly difficult to discuss openly. By this I mean that we seldom consider the merits of the arguments put forward in good faith, and instead forward in good faith, and instead fall back on principled objections. I regret, my Lords, that abortion has become such a binary and closed off debate in this country.

One's views on the subject are put into a box. Compassionate or unfeeling, morally progressive or morally regressive? Forward looking or Victorian. I'm sure noble Lords will agree that this serves nobody well at all, whether that is in this place, in facilitating constructive and reasonable debate, and thereby serving the watching public well, or perhaps more importantly, in promoting the safety and well-being of women and unborn children. There are, I would hope, things that we can agree on. Statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care on the 15th of January this year show the highest number of abortions ever recorded in England.

Wales, with 278,740 taking place in 2023, a 10% increase on the previous year. When added to figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland. This amounts to nearly 300,000 abortions across the UK in 2023, my Lords. Nearly 1 in 3 of all pregnancies ended in abortion in 2023. Whether you believe access to abortion is an inviolable right or not, this is a deeply sobering reality for us to consider, and it is vital context for our debate on this group of amendments.

This is an issue not just of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. It is an issue of human rights. And I was disappointed that Baroness Hazarika sought to strike a slightly discordant tone about circumscribing who could comment on these issues and who was more qualified as as regarding someone else, because I think that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regrettable. My Lords, clause one way. I just think we can all agree on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just think we can all agree on the fact that there's going to be a certain number of people in this House who have never been pregnant House who have never been pregnant and who have never had to go through what. Now, that doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't get an opinion on it, but there will be a lot of young women looking at this debate, because the consequences of this are going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences of this are going to be very profound. That was the point I was making. Well, I've never committed murder or been a hangman, but I can take a view on capital punishment as a moral view. And I do I do think, to disaggregate people as to what their, the right or obligations to comment on the debate is not helpful. And I, I caveat that with saying I have an awful lot of respect for how eloquent the noble Lady put her case.

As I said at Second Reading, it will harm women, increase the number of late term abortions and dehumanise children in the womb in a way which I find chilling. But but that has not been reflected in the way it has come to form part of the bill. During the debate on the report. In the other place, which lasted a little over two hours in total, three new clauses were debated new clause one, which is now clause one nine, one new clause 20, which proposed a more extreme form of decriminalisation even than that we are considering today.

And new clause 106, which I am delighted to see retabled as amendment 460. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Stroud, which, needless to say, I strongly support, in fact, saying that there were two hours of debate on such a significant proposal is perhaps overly generous. Sandwiched between the remarks of the three members moving the new clauses and the responses of the frontbenchers. Just 46 minutes were given over to speeches from backbench MPs. The point, my Lords, is that there has been a scandalous lack of consideration of this change in our law and its impact.

I accept that some aspects of abortion law are an issue of conscience, but that is not a get out of jail free card for failure to undertake any form of due diligence, particularly on proposals that many of us regard as potentially dangerous. There is no impact assessment. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been no consultation of any kind. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this group, does address those particular issues. I strongly support Baroness Monckton proposed proposal to remove clause 191 from the bill, and will do so again at report.

However, the danger of 191 is compounded by the continuation of the pandemic hangover policy of pills by Post, which provides for easy access to abortion pills without sufficient checks. I am afraid, my Lords, that I simply cannot understand the view which holds that clause 191 is pro-women in combination with the ongoing availability of pills by post. It instead seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds. It opens the gates for overly expeditious access to less than safe care. As the Member for Reigate and the Other Place has said, being pro-choice should not mean supporting fewer checks and worse care for women seeking an abortion.

Indeed, this is an issue where both sides of the abortion debate ought to eschew tribalism and unite in support of common sense measures that safeguard women. I hope, my Lords, that we can rise above tribalism on this issue and find some common ground. My Lords, there are other amendments in this group which I strongly support, including amendment 455 and amendment 459. But I'll move to my own amendment 461F whilst I would pick out other excellent amendments from this group, in the interest of time, I'll speak to my amendment.

Particularly, my amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the investigation of offences relating to abortion and infanticide within 12 months of the commencement of clause 191. The amendment is concerned with providing clarity and clear protocols to distinguish between what would be a decriminalised, self-induced abortion and a criminal act of infanticide or child destruction. My amendment is also designed to reassure proponents of 191, including some who have voiced concern about possible intimidation or distress caused to a woman who may have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth.

My Lords, I recognise those concerns women facing miscarriage, stillbirth or medical crisis deserve care, dignity and compassion and nothing in my amendment changes that. However, I would put the points of the other way around and suggest the absence of clear guidance is what can produce overreach and inconsistency. When professionals are left uncertain about the law and uncertain about thresholds, practice understandably becomes variable. Some cases may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mishandled. I just want to. I'm puzzled. By something the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By something the. Noble Lord has said he'd like to clarify. I'm not quite sure how jailing women is pro-women.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will forgive me. I didn't quite hear the last part of her question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. I fail to understand because the noble Lord has talked about being pro-women. I don't like the noble Lord to explain to the House why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jailing women is pro-women quite absolutely this. The simple point is, if clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The simple point is, if clause 191 is incorporated into the bill, then we will have a situation where then we will have a situation where many more women are under threat of coercion. Many more women will face coercion. Many more women will face complications. We already see the figures now, even in the incomplete and substantial substantial figures and substantial substantial figures produced by the Department of Health on abortions in 2023 showed that for the gestation period, over 20, 61.3% of women per 100,000 have experienced complications arising from abortion in all clinical settings.

That that phenomenon will continue and it will get worse. I hope that is suffice. The the noble Lady. My amendment is directed towards striking an appropriate balance by providing the legal certainty which would prevent overzealous investigation, weighed against the need to protect children by defining clear thresholds for investigation. We both protect vulnerable women whilst maintaining a shield for infants born alive. Clause 191 fundamentally changes our legal landscape, and it is appropriate and reasonable to require updated public consultative guidance so that police and prosecutors understand what remains investigational, what standards apply, and how to act lawfully and consistency.

My Lords, in conclusion, if Parliament insists on decriminalising the women's role in procuring her own abortion, it has a profound moral duty to ensure the law can still protect the infant the moment it leaves the womb Clause. Amendment 461 is a F is a measured attempt to ensure this, and arguably the bare minimum in terms of responsible lawmaking. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment and others in this group which seek to protect women and the most vulnerable lives among us.

And I urge the Minister to consider my amendment. 461 F carefully as the Bill moves to report.
18:53
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, my Lord, my. >> Lord, my Lord. >> Until recently I was I was head of my college, the Royal College of of my college, the Royal College of GPS, and the past head of it just is fully. Our college is fully in is fully. Our college is fully in favour of decriminalisation of of abortion. And just to quote, as Professor Hawthorne said, no woman should face prosecution under antiquated laws that were created before women were even allowed to vote.

This change in the law is a vital piece of protection for the reproductive and health rights of women, so I would just like to pick up a few issues, if that's OK. I've been fortunate enough to work in the NHS in a legal state in terms of abortion, which has been absolutely fabulous because I've seen many, many young women and girls and older women coming and needing terminations of pregnancy, and I have guided them through it. But I want to talk about a few things, for a start, telemedicine and this so-called medicines by post, and the assumption that this is somehow a bad thing.

I would like to turn it around and actually to say this is a patient centric initiative. Imagine that in having to to, to travel far, to have to go past your abusive husband or abusive partner, to say where you've been all day, this is humane, this is patient centric. And about 50% of women choose this option. It doesn't mean they don't get a proper assessment. Many people are assuming it's a sort of yet again, it's tick box. It's an hour long consultation with pre and post termination counselling, and at any point the woman can be seen face to face.

There is also an assumption that I've been hearing here that it's an unsafe procedure. And I think I heard I may have misheard that 1 in 17 women end up having complications of of having had a medical termination. Well, that's not the figures of the Royal College of Obstetrics, which actually, quote, for under ten weeks, 1 in 1000 women have heavy bleeds. And for those over 20 weeks, 4 in 1000. And those women are in hospital. And clearly it's a very different.

So it is nothing like 1 in 17. You also have to compare that we have the comparator of women who miscarry at home who without having an abortion, who probably themselves end up in hospital, as I did twice as a young woman when I had miscarriages. So I'd just like to to say that I also want to pick up the issue that somehow telemedicine is, is a process that is without any, any legal requirements. Of course it's got legal requirements. It's currently and it will continue to be regulated under the abortion law.

What we're doing is decriminalising it. I then want to talk about foeticide or foetal sex selection. All right. So actually foetal sex foetal sex can be determined as early as ten weeks. And many women choose to have, for one reason or another, choose to have to know the sex of their child. My both my my daughter in laws are going to say my sons. But of course, for the purpose of this, boys can't become pregnant at this point. They chose to to determine the sex of their child in order just as many people do.

So it is perfectly legal to determine the sex of your child. And anyway, at the 20 week scan you you can choose to determine the sex. Women can then choose to have a legal termination if they so wish. So I'm struck by Lord Winston saying it. There's there's legal implications. So this is nothing. This is conflating the issue of decriminalisation and sex selection. I personally am against sex selection, but it is not part of this argument about decriminalisation. I'd also just like to address the under 16 and compulsory safeguarding assessments, under what I assume would be a multi-agency assessment, which includes the police, including social workers.

At the moment, as the law stands, women under 16 can obtain abortion, can obtain sexual health and contraception without redress to having safeguarding implications as long as we are. Clearly you all know about Gillick and Fraser competence. So this would be a retrograde step with with these young girls wouldn't come to see us and would probably end up as one patient I saw very late in pregnancy, presented with a rational abdomen, which is actually the rash with stretch marks. And she was 32 weeks pregnant because she was so terrified.

And this was before the law changed, so terrified of admitting that she'd had unprotected sex and hadn't had her period. So the issue about compulsory safeguarding, again, is a retrograde step and nothing to do with this decriminalisation, which, as I said, I fully support.
18:58
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And he wants to defend the >> And he wants to defend the clause 191 remaining in the bill, but with some reservations before that. I do want to acknowledge the public interest in this issue, and a popular worry that it's all about legalising abortion up to birth. That is what is being discussed. And worse than that, people believe that somehow this legal change was rushed through the other place almost by the back door, actually, legalising up to birth is not what this is contained within clause 191, but I actually have sympathy with the public confusion over that and criticism about how the clause was added to the bill.

In the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke to some of this, but and everybody else has now mentioned how just a little time was spent discussing this in the other place. And I think more important than that was the fact that most people didn't know it was coming. Most members of the public were not expecting such a big change in the law and whatever, wherever you stand on this, abortion might be a settled entitlement for women. And it is.

I mean, most people accept that abortion exists in society, but it's still a morally charged, difficult discussion. For some. It's got conscience involved in it. There are contestations certainly about when life begins, and we can't deny it, that anything that talks to going beyond 24 weeks, and even as we've heard today, 24 weeks is contentious or becoming contentious, which it shouldn't. But it is then I think that we we should note that the public are perfectly right to be a bit furious and feel that they've been snuck, that somehow the democratic accountability system has been snubbed.

And I say that because I think what the what this debate needs actually is more discussion, more depth. And I'm glad to hear that we're getting some of it here, but we certainly didn't get it when it was brought into the into the bill in the House of Commons. That's led to a big backlash. And as it happens, that's not necessarily the best atmosphere in which you can conduct a rational, reasoned debate. I mean, I kind of don't even know how sex selection abortion got in here, but suddenly I'm reading all these articles saying, because of this, this clause, there's going to be sex selection.

I mean, the truth of the matter is, is there are some concerns that particularly in certain migrant communities where there is a patriarchal atmosphere, young women are being asked and forced to consider sex selection abortions. We should do something about that. That's terrible, blah, blah. This doesn't facilitate it any more than anything else. But somehow the kitchen sink has been thrown at this particular issue. Now, I wanted to just dare I. I mean, luckily the noble Lord and Leonard Lord Lord Pannick not in his place because I did want to try and untangle some law, which might of course, be a disaster.

But I, I do think that despite the best efforts of the noble Lady Baroness Thornton, who's perfectly, reasonably kept trying to explain what is and isn't in the law, we just need to get a few bits sorted. The Abortion Act of 1967 did not decriminalise abortion. It simply made it legal under certain circumstances, which is that you would be signed off by two doctors. And if the woman meets one of seven criteria, in other words, it creates a legal defence for doctors against the 1861 offences Against the Person Act and the criminal law.

Now, I've always argued, actually for full decriminalisation of abortion, but actually, ironically, amendment 191 doesn't do that. Amendment 191 tabled by Tony and Anthony. And I'm sorry, I know, I know, I'm mortified. Anyway, in the other place is Hansard will correct me is more limited simply disapplying existing criminal law for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy at any gestation. And it is very important to understand it's limited in that way. It's not a change in the law regarding the provision of abortion services in a healthcare setting on the Or.

It doesn't change the grounds for abortion. The time limit of 24 weeks, the requirement for two doctors, non-consensual or coerced abortion is still a crime at any gestation. All these things are still true. So in other words, it's actually quite limited. That might be it's you might might be problems with that, but that's true. Anyone who assist a woman to obtain an abortion outside the law, and this includes professional medical professionals, is liable for prosecution. So if you're coerced by the coercer is committing a crime and can be therefore caught.

So I just think it's important that we get a sense what it does do is ensure that the criminal law will not be used against any woman who ends her own pregnancy, even if this is over, the 24 week limit. But the way people have been talking here today, you'd think that this was a green light to incentivise widespread abortions to birth, as the lurid headlines would have it, as though women have just been waiting for clause 191 so that they can, you know, carry on getting pregnant longer or stay pregnant longer just so they can rush off and terminate later and get away with it.

I mean, that's the way it's been discussed. It's like all these women are going to go, great, I don't have to go at 12 weeks. I'm going to last out for 25, 26 and then rush down the road. So I don't think that's what is actually happening now. Ironically, a lot of the discussion is focussed on a general squeamishness, and one can understand this about late abortions. The policy target, despite the discussion being about late abortions and babies and so on.

Actually, ironically, if you listen to these amendments in this discussion, the policy target of many of these amendments is to attack pills by post. And the irony of that is, and we've just published at the Academy of Ideas, a brilliant essay by Doctor Ellie Lee on this is that Pills by Post are a fantastic step forward for early terminations. And yet we are demonising pills by post. We're demonising telemedicine in general. Actually, what this allows is for women to be able to get access to the drugs that they need to have an early termination safely and at home.

And I mean, it's much easier to access these medication than going to a clinic or going to the pharmacy or going to your GP. And some people will say, oh my goodness me, that's a disaster. Whereas I think it's brilliant because it means that women won't delay in applying for them, and they will therefore be able to have early abortions. Now, when I was campaigning around this sort of thing, I was campaigning on the as early as possible, as late as necessary.

And I have to say that I'm delighted that as early as possible is getting earlier, and we should celebrate that. And there's a danger that the reaction in the backlash against 191 is going to make accessing the means of early abortions to be taken away from people. I, I just want to finish off with, with a sort of general point. Wherever we stand on this, women's reproductive rights are a very important thing for us to defend in a modern Western society.

In February, last February, the Taliban removed the contraceptive pill from Afghanistan's pharmacies. That might sound very dramatic, but we all know how horrifying that is. We know what it means and we're repulsed. Any society that compels women to bear children they don't want. And it's why over the years we fought for contraception and why we fought for the right to abortion, we didn't fight for the right to abortion in order to be barbaric, or because we're interested in killing babies in the womb or any of these things.

We fought for it so that we would be able to control our reproduction. Not the state, not the priest, not anyone else, not the Taliban. And actually, abortion is accepted as a reproductive right and as a norm throughout the world. And lots of statistics have been used. You know, in the UK, 80%, 87% of adults believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortions. Now, I'm not saying that 191 is perfect. I actually really do not like the way it was brought in in the other place.

But I do think when it comes to fundamentals, that I would much prefer to ensure that we don't criminalise some women for the mistakes of maybe a late abortion, or as we've heard, the terrible situation where they didn't even know they were pregnant or they miscarried, and the back and the backlash and the backlash against it is in danger of setting women's rights back. And I know that even pro life peers will not want to be responsible for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I see amendments in this group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I see amendments in this group. Many people Minister. Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many people Minister. Minister, Minister, no, I. Want to speak to my three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to speak to my three and. To to. Speak to the three amendments I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to the three amendments I have tabled. And I urge your noble Lords, the noble Lords, to show the normal courtesies we extend when a peer is speaking to an amendment he or she has tabled. So I will start with my amendments four five, six B, four 61H and 461K. I'll start with 456B, which is the Third amendment in this group. As matters stand, the law allows for abortions only under certain clearly defined
19:09
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
conditions. After 24 weeks, this conditions. After 24 weeks, this amendment 456B aims to ensure that women follow these conditions after women follow these conditions after 24 weeks. The amendment aims to 24 weeks. The amendment aims to ensure that something which is, I suppose, the most important of my three amendments, and that's why three amendments, and that's why I'm speaking to it. First, bearing in mind the problems and consequences to which other noble Lords have already pointed, clause 191 leaves abortion over 24 weeks as unlawful, but in practice it also leaves open the possibility for a woman to have such an abortion without consequences.

After 24 weeks, my amendment four, five, six would help to ensure that present day legislation is observed by stipulating that criminal culpability, as removed, is removed from the women. Women only if the abortion takes place before 24 weeks. As the law stands at present, there is a big difference between before and after 24 weeks, and the law is clear before 24 weeks there is a procedure and the regulations to be complied with, and it is a relatively straightforward procedure.

In practice, abortions before 24 weeks are allowed to go ahead once the paperwork has been done. By contrast, after 24 weeks, abortions are only allowed to go ahead under a defined, limited process and subject to stringent conditions such as the mother's life would be endangered, or that the child would be born with serious defects. And these matters have been raised as as if they didn't exist. These stipulations have been raised in the chamber today, as if they weren't already part of the law.

When, therefore, a woman procures an abortion outside the legal procedure before it, outside the legal procedure before 24 weeks, she almost certainly would have had the abortion lawfully. In terms of the law. But the fault is one of failing to go through the proper procedures. But for abortions performed outside the law after 24 weeks, the position is completely different. There are these are abortions which may well not have been permitted under the law had the woman sought permission.

To put it bluntly. In these cases, the woman kills her own baby when she has not. When she has not been legally permitted to do so and might have been denied the permission. Remember that in these post 24 week cases, the babies concerned may well be viable. The new clause removes criminal culpability from women for abortions at any time, but it is hard to see how a reasonable distinction can be made between a baby who is ready to be born, and one who has just been.

And I suppose that I was very impressed by the by the the speeches of the my noble friend Viscount Hailsham, and indeed the noble Lady Leonard noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss on these points, my Lords, just to conclude on this one, which will be the longest it has been pointed out, the next stage in these matters is to decriminalise infanticide. What do we think of a society which kills babies a day before being born? Indeed, as they are ready to exit the womb? Where, although the act remains a crime, the law exists, excuses the main perpetrator.

So this would leave us that an act remains a crime. But the law is excusing the main perpetrator of any blame. Is this the sort of society we want to create? Now I move on to my other create? Now I move on to my other amendments. 46 one and 40 61H, 40 amendments. 46 one and 40 61H, 40 61K and. Sorry, I'm so sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page 11. Sorry, sorry sorry. Notes I think 461K is a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Notes I think 461K is a really interesting one about how is the government going to actually make sure the providers of a variety of sure the providers of a variety of abortions actually do operate within the law and make those checks? I know it's something I'll checks? I know it's something I'll be discussing in regard to my amendment shortly. As debate continues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continues. I thank the copy, but Baroness Coffey, but just to go through 461H and this is for an in-person consultation, and we've already heard from the proposals of amendment 460, which would require that this consult consultation be in person. Now, my amendment would require that this. But it would also add that the gestational age of the baby has been reliably ascertained by medical scan or other equivalent means. Usually this means an ultrasound scan, which can be given at seven weeks onwards.

First, tremendous trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive, and commonly used to confirm pregnancy. Identified the due date of the baby and and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for information, correct that first trimester ultrasound scans are carried out with a scans are carried out with a vaginal probe so they are invasive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vaginal probe so they are invasive. I thank the noble Lord for that. But I think it was the Americans. One of the American learned societies of obstetricians, societies of obstetricians, gynaecologists and other kinds of medicine which use technology, indicate and other sites to that it can. It is successful from seven weeks on and certainly from 9 or 10 weeks. It is so there are differences. And these differences are indeed the subject of debate in amongst medical professionals.

And I can see the noble Lord shaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his head. Just as a matter of information. I must tell the noble Lady, but I must tell the noble Lady, but thank you for giving me giving way in a clinic which I've run for over in a clinic which I've run for over 40 years, which does ultrasound on every patient with high degree of every patient with high degree of of expertise. These measurements are not that accurate. They really are not. There's a real risk that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you get the wrong the wrong state of the foetus completely at least a month out, if not more. I thank the noble Lord and I have great respect for his expertise, but I think there is a debate about how how successful scans are and from what stage, and we can debate that on another occasion. But there is evidence that scans can be used successfully, and I won't take any more interventions because my time is running out and I have two more to go through, one more to go through after this.

And there is evidence and and for the first terms, trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive and commonly used to confirm pregnancy, identifying due date, etc. at the moment, the requirement is that the medical practitioner believe in good faith that the pregnancy will not will not exceed ten weeks when the medicine or the first dose of a course is administered. I contend that either the condition stretches the idea of belief and good faith unreasonably widely, so the medical practitioner simply accepts what they are told, perhaps by the pregnant woman who may herself be speaking in perfectly good faith.

And we've seen tragic cases of this, but it's mistaken, or else that it is only after the gestational age of the baby has been reliably ascertained that the medical practitioner is in a position, for it is only in that case that the medical practitioner is in a position to believe in good faith, that the pregnancy meets the conditions stated. My amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does not change the act and. Order, order would the no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

barriers come to a conclusion? Most certainly bring my. Remarks to a conclusion. I'll just briefly introduce 191, if I may, because of those interventions on my lots of notes, I have to on my lots of notes, I have to confess k my last amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals to sorry. I'm sorry. My last. Baroness Willis give way for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Willis give way for a moment, please. I'm going to make an intervention in general about this rather lengthy debate, and I this rather lengthy debate, and I would like to draw your attention to page 63 of the companion in to page 63 of the companion in particular 446, which is called reading of speeches. And I will just read it out very clearly so just read it out very clearly so everybody can understand what it says. It says this House has resolved that the reading of speeches is, I quote, alien to the custom of this House and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates.

End of quote. It is acknowledged, however, that in some occasions, for example, ministerial statements or statements from frontbench speakers that it is right to read from a prepared text. In practice, some speakers may wish to have extended notes from which to speak, but it is not in the interest of good debate that they should follow them closely. Could I also point out that the time limits that are advised are made to include interventions? If there are interventions, it doesn't mean you go over the time.

The reason the ministerial statements are for 20 minutes at the end of a debate is it allows for interventions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respond to the noble Lord, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respond to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the companion, says that we shouldn't read speeches. There is an argument that that that is classist. It's also sexist. Many women are not used to speaking ad lib. No, no. Well, they aren't OK. lib. No, no. Well, they aren't OK. And and and and many, many of us, many of us have not been parliamentarians for long. We have not been at the right schools where there have been debating societies. And if we want to say something important for the for for the good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the common, we should be allowed order. I think we need to just return to the actual debate that we're to the actual debate that we're having. I suggest that no Baroness should should conclude her remarks imminently, and we can carry on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. No. May I. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. My Lords, what clause one, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, what clause one, my amendment 461K suggests that agrees that people putting forward this clause are not trying. They say they're not trying to legalise abortion that would otherwise be legal. If it were to happen, it would be extremely important to ensure that proper mechanisms for prosecuting the party, which is, that is to say, the abortion provider, is not above the law, nor are they beyond the reach of the law. And we should not forget that providers of abortion are, for the most part, non-medical clinics, which provide around 80% of abortions with taxpayers funding the bill.

And like all service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providers, they have a Creedon. I think the Baroness has had a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lot of the House's indulgence. Thank you. We'll take that as a finish. My Lords, having having nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, having having nothing. To say on. This point, but. I think the noble Lady was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the house was moving. When when the whips tell us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to conclude, we really should conclude. My Lords, when whenever I listen. To the noble Lord. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I move my amendments. I would like to move the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to move the amendments. I, I think there's some of us have been sitting through this debate right from the very debate right from the very beginning. Others come in late and then they make certain speeches. And I notice he had to read what he And I notice he had to read what he had to say as well. So therefore I would I would just say to him very
19:23
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
would I would just say to him very gently and be as precious as I can, this is a very vital issue. And there are those of us who do believe that it's important to say what we have to say carefully, clearly, and therefore we are seeking to make a point to put on the record. And I wish, because people are watching this, and I must be honest, having sat here for so long, one could be very confused in our debates because on Friday we were debating, allowing and encouraging sick and elderly people how to end their lives, to get off to end their lives as quick as possible.

And now we're debating something which allows healthy babies not to be allowed, even to live their lives. So people outside are confused about what or where we're standing. And therefore, I do believe there's a matter that we need to deal with. And therefore on this issue, women who are pregnant. And can I say this as a father, my wife and I, we have five children. We also lost one child. So therefore I only wish to say that you don't know what it is. I resent that because as a father of five children and bringing them up through all of those years, I certainly know what it is to bring children up even to this present day.

Now, women who are pregnant, whether it is intended pregnancy or not, they deserve compassion. They deserve support. They deserve honesty from us in this place as we debate these matters so and so too do children who are capable of being born alive. My concern is that 191 clause unsettles a delicate legal balance, one that many of us already feel is too casual about the rights of the unborn child. Without the security that such a change demands. Now, my Lords, in the other place, the other place, two hours and 15 minutes were found for a backbench Business Committee debate to consider government support for the fishing industry.

Debate on the forthcoming business lasted one hour 17 minutes. These are important matters, and I don't cite those figures to denigrate the topics were debated or indeed the business managers in the other place. What I am pointing out is this I find it remarkable that the entire debate on this issue in the other House, which not only concerned what is in clause 191, but also the more extreme decriminalisation proposal, as well as a sensible, reasoned amendment to reinstate in-person consultation before prescribing abortion pills lasted just two hours.

An actual fact it's even worse. 46 minutes were available for speeches from the backbenches. That's how long they took to come to the conclusion that decriminalisation concerning this issue. Now, my Lord, this is not responsible lawmaking on a matter which carries profound consequences for the status of the unborn and also for the safety of the women. And that is why I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Monckton to remove clause 191 from the bill, and associate myself entirely with those who have spoken on that issue in support of her.

This is not simply a matter of differing world views or perspectives on the subject of abortion. Legal opinion, including that of Steven Rose KC, confirms that clause 191 would permit a woman to perform her own abortion at home for any reason, right up to the moment of birth, with no legal deterrent. That was Steven Rose cases legal opinion. Now we heard another legal opinion, but as we know, that's how lawyers make their money disagreeing with one another. Now, for myself, I am clear that science tells us that life begins at conception, but I also accept that this is not currently reflected in our law.

However, whether one agrees or disagrees with the law as it stands, it is at least clear in removing women from the existing criminal framework as clause 191 does, we append our current settlement were in as a gestation of a pregnancy advances, so too does the state's interest increase. This is not arbitrary, but recognises the view that with increasing viability must come increasing protection for the unborn. My Lord, this is explicit recognition that not only are two lives involved in any pregnancy, but that they both require protection.

This is also a matter of safety with regard to complications. A government review published in November 23rd found that medical abortions after 20 weeks, even in clinical settings, have a complication rate more than 160 times higher than abortions under ten weeks. The government's own commentary on the publication of Abortion Statistics for England and Wales in 2023 acknowledges that data on complications does not present a true picture. And that, and I quote, where medical medication is administered at home, complications may be less likely to be recorded.

End of quote. My Lord, without a person in person, check. Women can mistakenly or through pressure, obtain pills far beyond the ten week limit by pills, by post abortions. This seems to me to be a recipe for a disaster as it is, but with a deterrent effect of the current law removed by clause 191. I fail to see how this problem will not be exacerbated, and how that more women would not be placed in precisely those high risk situations.

My Lord, this is why amendment 460, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Stroud, ably supported and spoken to by Baroness Foster, matters by restoring in-person consultation before pills are prescribed, the amendment simply returns us to best practice model with regards to women's safety and the protection for viable unborn babies. It provides a crucial opportunity to assess gestation accurately, to screen for potential harm, and to identify coercion or abuse. This is not a restrictive or regressive measure, but it is a pro safety one which, according to the poll of 2103 adults by Whitestone Insight shortly before clause 191 passed in the Commons, is supported by two thirds of women, with only 4% in favour of the status quo.

As I said at the outset, my Lords, this is a complex matter and that it reflects it is reflected in the number of safeguarding amendments which have been tabled and formed part of this group. There are attempts to slow down their attempts to slow down, examine consequences and ensure that both women are not placed in greater danger, and that viable babies are protected. The Lords I close by saying this they are my and my closing remarks by saying it is not necessary to share my own entire moral framework, to feel uneasy about decriminalising self-administered abortion at any gestation without robust safeguards, it is possible to support women, and also to be concerned about unintended harm.

It is possible to defend autonomy and still believe that the law has a role to play with respect to viable babies. My Lords, the exercise of caution in our judgements on the matter of this magnitude was such irreversible consequences as wisdom, and I urge noble Lords to pause to support the removal of clause 191 and to support sensible safeguard measures such as amendment 460 and other amendments in this group. Lord Clement-Jones my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comfort is. I'm moving an amendment is your Lordships will permit me. You're Lord Singh I'm speaking late on in the debate and others have made many points. I just want to move many points. I just want to move the amendments in my name in this group and to say a few words about Baroness Monckton amendment to Baroness Monckton amendment to which I am a signatory. I support the amendments also in the names of the Lord Bailey Lord Jackson, Baroness Stroud, Baroness Eaton and Lawler.

My Lords, I consider myself very fortunate to have never had an abortion, and I wonder how many of us in your Lordships House have actually had one. I want to make it clear that I don't oppose abortion altogether. No woman would choose an abortion lightly, and I fully recognise the points that have been raised about the distress of police investigations for women at that at that time in their lives, but we owe it to ourselves and to the women affected to be honest about the reality of what we're discussing in 2022, 260 abortions in England and Wales took place at or beyond 24 weeks gestation.

These abortions must be performed in NHS hospitals. The woman is awake. She goes through actual labour, including painful contractions. She will deliver a fully formed infant via a vaginal delivery. We may wonder if every woman going through this is fortunate enough to be in a bereavement suite with specialist care, or will she be in the next room to someone delivering a healthy baby? At 24 weeks, a baby is 12in long, weighs about one and a half pounds with a fully formed face.

And the NHS website tells us at 32 weeks, an unborn baby is perfectly formed and just needs to put on weight. Once delivered, we
19:34
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
wonder what happens to the infant. They're classified as clinical waste to be incinerated or at earlier gestations. Women are advised they can take the remains home, bury them in the garden, home, bury them in the garden, flush them down the toilet or place in household rubbish. My Lord says in household rubbish. My Lord says no extensive research on the long term emotional impact on women of late term abortions. But natural late term abortions. But natural human empathy tells us that this must carry significant emotional impact and distress.

My heart goes out to those who are in this position because of foetal abnormalities. But I ask your Lordships whether extending this experience to any point in pregnancy, including up to full term, is truly in the interests of women and girls, many of whom are victims of reproductive coercion, domestic abuse, child rape, trafficking or modern slavery. When we have so little understanding of the long term effects, in fact, there is complete silence around late term abortions. It's a taboo subject associated with complex feelings.

There's hardly any information about what it actually involves, how it will impact women and their bodies, and removing any legal deterrent which this clause does, means we put more women in a world of scary and unsafe unknowns, and we leave our public services to pick up the pieces without any plan. And these are almost certainly not women with significant resources, resilient mental health or strong support systems. We are leaving the most vulnerable at greater risk of exploitation. And I come at this respectfully from a totally different perspective from the Baroness Hazarika and others, because we know that abuse often takes the form of reproductive coercion.

As Baroness Falkner explained in the case of Stuart Walby. And we know that this is a pattern for grooming gang victims as well. And I fully accept this is not the design or intent of the policy, but it very much is the unintended consequence. Consequence. And how many of us can genuinely say that we always pass perfect laws without unintended consequences? It is not the case. This situation could happen via the pills by post scheme, or by coercion or other reasons, and those who support this clause present it as a feminist fight for women's rights, and accuse those of us on the other side of the debate of ignoring suffering of women.

And they tell us this radical law change is necessary because dozens of women are facing life in prison under a Victorian law. But almost every part of this claim is questionable. The law in question, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, may be old. It's still the basis of our laws today against GBH and manslaughter, and nobody would suggest that that's obsolete. And the idea that women are facing life in principle is also fanciful. The one high profile conviction in recent years under the Offences Against the Person Act resulted in a short prison sentence that was suspended on appeal.

And as for the numbers, the groups who are campaigning for this tell us that six women have been prosecuted over the past three years. But given that there are now almost 300,000 abortions a year, it's hard to see why this justifies such a significant change. It, of course, it's regrettable if there are women who have been wrongly investigated, but that is a police matter and we don't disapply other laws simply because people are sometimes wrongly investigated. And it's absolutely critical that we make the distinction between babies who would or would not be viable outside the womb.

That is why we have the 24 week limit. The member in another place, Tonia Antoniazzi, who tabled clause 1191, is on record as saying in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort at 37 weeks without committing an offence. Are people really comfortable with passing a law that means a woman could abort at full term for any reason, without committing an offence, as as would be the effect of this clause. And many have spoken about the dangers of telemedicine, so I won't expand on that.

But we discussed that in the assisted dying debate. And under that bill, two doctors would have to make sure that the person applying for an assisted death was actually terminally ill by examining relevant records. But the pills by post scheme permits women to obtain abortion pills with no reliable way of ascertaining if they're under the limit before which it's legal and safe to take pills or even be pregnant at all. And turning briefly to my amendments four, five nine and 461G. While I sincerely hope this House will support Baroness Monckton amendment, in case it doesn't, I've tabled amendment 459B to introduce a sunset clause requiring the Secretary of State to renew the legislation after each of the first three years.

The related amendment 502 A is to make these regulations in subsection three subject to the affirmative procedure, and in so doing it encourages awareness and scrutiny of the provision and provides an opportunity to reverse the effects of clause 191. Should the consequences be as I fear. And I have also tabled amendment 461G, which would require an annual report concerning concerning abortion drugs that have been obtained illegally, maybe online, which I worry will become more likely under clause 191 removal under clause 91I apologise.

Of course, this not need not solely relate to women considering an abortion themselves, but also to third parties or traffickers who obtain pills illegally in order to coerce an abortion or cover up abuse. It establishes ongoing transparency and oversight concerning what I fear will increasingly become a matter of public health and safeguarding concern. And I should mention, I was unable to table any amendments to require the government to collect numbers of pills by post that are actually issued, or to require that they that's captured on women's medical records, because it's not in scope for this bill, but the Minister, I would be grateful if they actually look at that issue, because I think it's very important.

There is a genuine worry that with the numbers of abortions rising and young women turning to that option more frequently, the future consequences for their reproductive health are simply unknown. And we have many noble Lords in in this House who who practice medicine. And yet we could see women coming to them and not disclosing that they've taken pills by post in the past. And the cases that have led to the clamour for decriminalisation up to birth have resulted from the pills by post and its inability to ensure safeguards are maintained.

It's a dangerous course of actions. Taking these pills outside the ten week gestational limit. The Department for Health and Social Care consultation found that the risks of this would be risk of an ongoing viable pregnancy, reduced efficacy of abortions and a risk of death. So I hope the House will consider my amendments as additional safeguards for women and girls, and I beg to move these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Along with my Lords, my. My, my Lords. I'm afraid it's I'm sorry, reluctantly, but I'm afraid it's clear there's a number afraid it's clear there's a number of backbenchers who wish to speak as well as we have frontbenchers. So I now propose that we're going So I now propose that we're going to adjourn the debate on amendment four, five, five and then and then move to dinner, break business, and move to dinner, break business, and then we'll resume the debate. And just to advise Lordships House that a note has, of course, been taken of those who are those who are here of those who are those who are here for this, for the debate on amendment four, five, five.

So when we resume, we'll be able to continue the debate in an orderly fashion. So I'd I'd propose the House to adjourn debate on amendment 455.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that debate on amendment 455 be adjourned. As many of that opinion say. Content, of that opinion say. Content, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that the House be resumed, as is that the House be resumed, as many of that opinion say content the contrary not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I was going to do OK. I was just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. And we move to deliberate business, and we will not return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill for 2022. The House the House will be will be resumed and will not return to be resumed and will not return to debate until 2022. Question. On a debate until 2022. Question. On a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, the 29th of Commons on Thursday, the 29th of
19:43
19:43
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
Ombudsman and the associated question of a financial remedy, arose from decisions taken under a Labour government and the responsibility of Labour Ministers. In the years that followed, there were notable and sustained support from Labour Ministers for the WASPI campaign, including calls for compensation voiced by individuals who now occupy the most senior positions in government. Now that Labour is in power, that position appears to have been abandoned. The result is not merely disappointment, but a profound sense of betrayal.

My Lords, it's no wonder the Waspi women are furious. At no point in the oral statement, as far as I can see or understand, was this reversal acknowledged. Instead, attention was diverted towards general references to changes in the state pension age, which did nothing to address the specific findings of maladministration or the expectations that were so clearly raised. There is a strong sense of frustration surrounding this issue, not only among members of this House, but more importantly among the Waspi women themselves.

Much of that frustration arises not simply from the substance of the decision, but from the manner in which it has been handled and communicated by the government. From welfare reform to Winter Fuel payment. And now this. A pattern has emerged of poor communication and delayed decision making. Too often, it's not the policy itself that causes the greatest anger, but the uncertainty, delay and lack of clarity that surrounded it. Indecision is itself a decision, and in this case it has meant leaving people's lives and expectations suspended for months.

In recent months, expectations appeared to have been raised, only to be lowered again following the Ombudsman report. Many campaigners believe that a different outcome was genuinely under consideration, only to be told once more that nothing has changed. The noble Baroness, the Minister, will recall suggestions that decisions on this matter were left unresolved until after the general election in 2024. This is not entirely accurate. Statements made before the election set out the government's position with some clarity, which makes it legitimate for WASPI women to ask my why.

More recent communications appeared to imply that the the issue and situation remained open. Against that background, can I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to explain how the government now intends to communicate its position clearly and directly to WASPI women themselves? My Lords will let us be issued setting out the decision and the reason for it, and if so, when and in what form will that communication take place? Given the strength of feeling amongst those affected, this issue must be treated with the gravity it deserves.

And more broadly, there is a sense that, you know, poor managerial experience has characterised the handling of this matter, further undermining trust. The damage has been compounded by the contrast between earlier rhetoric and the position now being taken. The Deputy Prime Minister, the justice Secretary, spoke of a cliff edge facing Waspi women. The Foreign Secretary said she was fighting for a fair deal. The Chancellor said she wanted justice. The current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions publicly associated himself with MPs campaigning for a better outcome.

Those who once stood beside them now appear in their eyes to have turned away. I know that the noble Baroness, the Minister, referred to Pension Credit and the importance of take up, and I completely share that with her. I did my very best when I was in her position, to make sure that we did everything we could to take to make sure that Pension credit was taken up and was increased. And I'm not sure if progress has stalled on that or whether there's any improvement to the position.

So can the Minister clarify to us about the position in take up of Pension Credit, if this is to be something that can be used to placate some of these genuine WASPI women? And so, my Lords, I leave it with there with the Minister.
19:48
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, thank you. To noble >> My Lords, thank you. To noble Lady, the Minister, for bringing this statement to to this House. My Lords government says WASPI women should have known about the changes. I am reminded of a quote from a book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I quote, well, the plans were on display. You found the notice, didn't you? It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing Cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.

And another relevant quote from the same book. All planning charts and demolition orders were on display at the local planning department in Alpha Centuri for 50 years. My Lords, the issue here is whether these women were communicated with adequately. 3.6 million Waspi women have been badly treated. They were given some hope. We have an ombudsman who made a recommendation to provide some justice and pay some compensation. Can the Minister, an ideal Minister, say why this recommendation has been ignored? We have heard apologies, but no compensation.

If you are a woman who knew that at a certain age you would receive a pension, you probably didn't give another thought that the rules had changed. Announcements were made. Of course. Lots of announcements were made, letters were sent, lots of letters were sent. Sometimes, as the Ombudsman said, belatedly. But the truth is that messages were not received or understood. The Ombudsman was recommended as recommended compensation of £1000 to £2950 per person. I have to ask the Minister very bluntly why this Ombudsman recommendation has not been implemented.

It's not a question of justice. It's a reluctance to spend money on a group of people who cannot fight back. I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, hopefully to take back to her colleagues in the department that there is a feeling, I hope, across this House, that the Waspi women have been maltreated and the least they can expect, the least they can expect is the recommendation of the Ombudsman. The independent Ombudsman is putting put into effect. It's not enough in my view, but it is an ombudsman thing, and I'd like to see what reasoning the Minister can, the Minister can give for, for, for ignoring, for ignoring this.

And I hope that she will take back to her colleagues in the other house and her department the feelings of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House that the Ombudsman's decision should be honoured. I'm grateful to both noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to both noble Lords for their questions. Last November, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told Parliament that the government would make a new government would make a new decision in response to the Ombudsman's findings on state pension age communications. That followed relevant evidence coming followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision, announced in original decision, announced in December 2024. The Secretary of State has now concluded the process to make a new decision, and there is a copy of the government's full response in the library.

But we do need to be clear as to exactly what the Ombudsman did and did not investigate. The Ombudsman did not investigate the decision, first taken in 1995, to equalise the state pension age, nor to accelerate the increases. There are different views about the raising of the state pension age, and about the decision of the coalition government in 2011 to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66. But that is not the subject of the Ombudsman's decision. What the Ombudsman investigated is how the change in state pension age was communicated to the women affected, and whether, within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice, and, if so, whether it warrants compensation.

The Ombudsman concluded that the department's communications met expected standards between 1995 and 2004. However, they found that between 2005 and 2007, there was a 28 month delay in DWP, sending personalised letters to women affected. The Ombudsman found that this was maladministration. My Lords, we accept that those individual letters could have been sent earlier and the Secretary of State has apologised for that. We also agree with the Ombudsman that the women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.

The question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. But, my Lords, the evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s born women would not have read and recalled the contents of unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions, the very women who most needed to engage with a letter and where it might have made a difference were least likely to read it.

So an earlier letter would have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded automatic Pension Forecast letters
19:54
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock (Labour)
-
-
only had a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the department stopped sending and the department stopped sending them. The evidence also shows that the vast majority of 1950s born women already knew the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide range of public information, including through leaflets, education campaigns, in leaflets, education campaigns, in GP surgeries, on TV and radio, in cinemas and online summer Lord cinemas and online summer Lord Soames. To compensate specifically, only those women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women.

That includes whether someone genuinely did not know their state pension age was changing, and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess conclusively the answers to these questions, but Lord Sewell the alternative might be to introduce a targeted scheme, for, my Lords, be considered that possibly, perhaps to allow people to self-certify. But that could not be done in a way that was fair and represents value for money, because we could not, even if we asked women to self-certify that they experienced injustice, would have no way of verifying it.

And as for a flat rate scheme that would cost up to £10.3 billion, that would simply not be right or fair given it would be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. But I fully recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Many women born in the 1950s have experienced significant disadvantage, not least in the labour market will continue working towards equality for women in the workplace now and in future, and ensure those with lower pension outcomes due to the inequalities they faced in the past, receive the right support.

We are delivering support to low income pensioners and pensioners more broadly by increasing the rate of the state pension, supporting the poorest through Pension Credit and investing more money in the NHS to reduce waiting lists and to strengthen vital services. For example, as the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott mentioned. Our Pension Credit take up campaign, to which has been promoted to eligible pensioners and their friends and family, and that is having a good effect and I'll be very happy to talk more if noble Lords are interested.

But it is. We are seeing significant numbers of increases in campaigns and in claims and awards, and that's really helpful. Now, in terms of a couple of other specific points that were mentioned, and the noble Lady challenge us as to why the opposition, why Labour in opposition took a different view. I would just say two things to her. First is that she will appreciate having been both in opposition and in government, that there's information one has in government that one isn't, doesn't have. And when one's in opposition.

And so we understand that many people are unhappy with what's happened. And although she is wanting suggesting that it's just entirely Labour's fault, I would suggest to her that quite a bit of the anger is actually about the rise in the state pension age, and in particular, the decision of the coalition government to accelerate that in 2011, which meant a significant number of women finding that they were they were finding their state pension age went up, went back more quickly, more, more fast, more quickly than they expected.

But my Lords, the decision this decision is not about that. And we need to separate the two things. We consider the Ombuds report very carefully, not just once, but twice, and gave it due and proper process, including information Ministers were not able to see before they were in government. And we concluded it's right to apologise for maladministration. But we believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the right one. And in response to the noble Lord Lord Farmer, that is the reason we made the decision.

We accepted that the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration. We did not accept the Ombudsman's approach to injustice for the reasons I have explained about the impact of the not sending of those letters. The finding was narrowly about a 28 month delay, and because the evidence suggests that the majority of women were aware their state pension age was changing. We do not accept it's possible, the basis of that to construct a compensation scheme that would be targeted at those who experienced injustice. In terms of the Ombudsman, the point that the noble Lord Lord Farmer challenged me about the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's finding the Ombudsman did his job, they did their job. But the Ombudsman's findings were fully and properly considered. But, my Lords, decisions on a compensation scheme of this scale are properly for Ministers and the government to take that is the case and indeed will always be. My Lords, this is a challenging issue. But it was right for the Secretary of State to review the evidence and to reach a decision based on due process and on the body of evidence. But looking forward to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement to make sure things like this do not happen again, and to help them to build a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better life for themselves and their families. Lords, my Lords, I am. I should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, my Lords, I am. I should let the House know that I'm joint chair of the all party parliamentary group on the State parliamentary group on the State Pension Inequality for women, which serves to bring the concerns of many 50s women to the attention of parliamentarians. I am glad that my noble friend, the Minister, in noble friend, the Minister, in answering the question, accepted the government's previous position that there was maladministration here. The statement itself does not use the word.

And I was going to ask, does the government still accept those maladministration? And it does, because my noble friend used the word twice now. My concern about this statement is that it says, quote, we also agree with the Ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss and delay. The trouble with that is that it ignores the first part of the paragraph in the Ombudsman's report, which puts that into context. It says, and I quote paragraph, paragraph 12 of the report, we find that maladministration in dwp's communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do things differently and diminish their their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.

The report goes on at a later stage, to say that this is a material injustice. So although there was no financial loss, there was a material injustice found by the Ombudsman. I could ask a series of questions, but specific question does my noble friend, the Minister accept? Does the government accept that damages can be ordered by the Ombudsman's, by the Ombudsman, even when there was no direct financial loss? The government appears to play considerable loss on a considerable weight, on the idea that there was direct financial loss, but that has never been a requirement by the Ombudsman to require the government to pay compensation.

Does my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend accept that point? My Lords, I don't, I don't. Let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I don't, I don't. Let me try to explain. We accept the FSA's the Ombudsman's findings on maladministration, but we specifically do not agree with the Ombudsman's approach to injustice. And the reason for that is that the And the reason for that is that the evidence taken as a whole, including the evidence from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s suggests that the majority of 1950s born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited letter. And, as I said, those less knowledgeable about pensions, the one where the ones to whom it would have made the most difference, were less likely to read it.

So the point is that a letter would have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age, and it's on that basis that we decided it would not be appropriate to pay financial compensation. We accept that the Ombudsman recommends it, but it is based on the Ombudsman's approach to injustice, which we do not accept. If we do not accept that it is possible to construct a compensation scheme to compensate only those who suffered injustice, because we believe the vast majority of of those new to state pension age was changing, then it would not be appropriate.

And that is the basis of the decision.
20:02
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
To relitigate the rights and wrongs over whether it was right to wrongs over whether it was right to equalise the retirement age of 65 or even 66. I mean, unusually, this was signalled well in advance when I started my career in 1990, which was 35 years ago. 36 now our private scheme equalised pension, retirement age at 63 and only five years later the state followed at 65. It's been known for a long time and as the as the Times newspaper said over the weekend, hyperbolic language about appalling utter betrayals and so forth could be applied to other state failings, but not this.

Elsewhere, consequential changes introduced overnight with no notice or consultation or communication. Now they should be questioned. And I'm thinking about IHT on private businesses. The taxation of private pensions upon death and the introduction of huge increases on national insurances overnight. Now that's the sort of thing for which hyperbolic language should be reserved. So I'm not going to line up and criticise the decision. It's one the last government concluded was the right one, and it's one that this government has also agreed with.

But if I do have a regret, it's that with all the nods and winks was given to a group of people, a women. And the cynic in me notes that this rhetoric was delivered in the pre-election period in a most regrettable manner, because it's plain as a pikestaff that if the government had weakened on this one and measured a cost of over £10 billion, where would it have ended? So whilst the government has marched the WASPI women all the way up to the top of the hill and down again, like the good old grand old Duke of York, the the outcome was always inevitable.

But that's a problem because the false hope has given that has has that was given has undermined confidence in the pension system amongst those who should be saving the hardest. Saving for a pension is a good thing. It fosters personal responsibility, security, safety for self and family. Suffering pain today for pleasure tomorrow and it needs long term stability. But successive measures like reducing incentives to save for the future, undermining confidence in the system itself and adding complexity in the pensions bill before this House make it worse, we're seeing mandation where the Chancellor can tell funds what to invest in, size limits, where there's a veto for existing players to keep out, innovative competitor, preventing certain types of investment from being eligible into pension funds and and so forth.

Even salary sacrifice changes, which I know noble Lords will be debating on Wednesday, are going to incentivise employers to drop incentives altogether. And taken together, these mixed messages, WASPI women included, have undermined that long term thinking that everyone needs to save for pension and as understandably led to the the feeling of complexity that, well, personal pensions just aren't really for me. And consequently, too many people are putting too much into tangible assets they can touch in which they have confidence, which is driving bubbles, which was good business until last Friday, but still was down a third.

And crypto is down 40% over the last few days. So I'd like to ask the Minister with this in mind, what would the complex with the complexity? I'm asking a question. Is it is it? Does she agree that actually when it comes to pensions, less is more. Less? A quiet, stable patient capital is much better. So for those who want to serve can do so and don't rely upon the state in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

old age. Well, my Lords, I'm attempting. There it is. I think I might save There it is. I think I might save my wider comments on the pensions bill for tomorrow, and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord once again in Grand Committee. It's once again in Grand Committee. It's been a great delight in recent weeks, and I look forward to having the pleasure again to discuss these things tomorrow. If I could just things tomorrow. If I could just say in answer to your questions, the decision was not inevitable.

The Secretary of State looked at the evidence, assessed it all the evidence, assessed it all carefully, and made a decision. And having made that decision based on the evidence, that that's the reason that's the issue, the statement which he has issued and put the reasons for that decision in the decision document, which has been placed in the library of the House. If I could also just say two other points to him, one, one serious one, which is that I agree about the importance of people saving and the reason the government is doing the pensions bill.

All the measures in that is to make sure that people get proper returns on their money in order to make sure that people can save more. And that is why we set up the Pensions Commission to look at questions of adequacy. But secondly, questions of adequacy. But secondly, my Lords, I would say to him that if his government had really wanted certainty on this matter, they certainty on this matter, they could have made the decision at any didn't.
20:07
20:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
over their head is an extraordinarily difficult thing, and it's really important not to and it's really important not to preach to them about them, about savings that they can't possibly make. But I should perhaps declare make. But I should perhaps declare an interest in. I first met the WASPI women in 2015, and indeed advised them on their first petition to Parliament, and I'm petition to Parliament, and I'm afraid I had to somewhat gently say that yes, you're going to get 100,000 signatures on the petition.

It doesn't. The Parliament will debate it. It doesn't mean you're suddenly going to. The obvious sense of your argument is going to win. Politics doesn't work like that. And so here we are in now in 2026. But I have my questions to the noble Lady. The Minister refers to one particular Waspi woman who I met outside on the road outside here, and she had quit her job at the age of 59 because the company was doing redundancies. And she thought, oh, I'm going to get a pension very soon, I'm going to leave and take the redundancy so that younger people are able to keep their job.

She then found that she wasn't getting her pension for years. She ran out of the redundancy money. She ended up on jobseeker's allowance. She applied for job after job after job and didn't get them. She'd been an office manager for decades for a medium sized enterprise. Then the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that to keep her jobseeker's allowance, she go on a CV writing course and a whole lot of other really basic pieces of training. She felt utterly mistreated and abused.

Now I understand why the terminology in this statement is the way it is, and the government is making talking in careful legalese, but the WASPI women and we see reports today, they're planning to fight on and good on them. But more than that, can the noble Lady, the Minister, understand how people have been put through that wringer of a decade of poverty and struggle, and being thoroughly disrespected by the system, that they would also like to hear words that acknowledge that.
20:09
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady, and I'm grateful to her for bringing an experience into the into the conversation rather than talking in generalities. Obviously she'll she'll understand why I can't comment on the individual situation, but I think she makes a number of really important points there, which I would like to acknowledge. One is that there clearly were a number of women who had hoped to retire early and then found they were retiring later. I think the challenge we have here is that the specifics of this decision were about what difference it would have made had those letters been sent 28 months earlier, because that's what the Ombudsman's finding was about.

Now, I know that, in fact, the issues people are angry about are much wider than that. And therefore the debate's been much wider than that. But that was what the government had to respond to, which is why it's been said in the way that it has. I was also sorry to hear that she didn't get the support she would have wanted from DWP. We are currently this government is now investing very heavily in supporting people of all ages and who some of whom are find that either they're not well enough to to be in the labour market, but to retirement.

Others want to but find that it's difficult to get a job and it is hard to be older. But actually we're investing really heavily in trying to support people in all of those circumstances. Those who find their health is struggling, but would like still to get back into work because they're not ready to retire. And those who who do need the money because they want to carry on. So we are investing a lot in the in our work programmes and our work coaches in tailoring the support there.

And I would really hope that if that woman came along to a Jobcentre tomorrow, she would get a warm welcome and someone to support her enabling to do that. In the meantime, the benefit system does provide some support for those who can't work but are not yet ready to retire. But as I say, I do thank her for sharing that experience. The noble.
20:11
20:12
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I thank the lady for her questions. I can understand that questions. I can understand that the fact that the government had to take the decision twice was something that will that will have caused uncertainty. I fully caused uncertainty. I fully understand that. But of course, the reason that the decision had to be taken again was because of a piece of evidence that emerged during the the legal challenge, and therefore the government was faced with a choice, should it just ignore that fact and carry on regardless, or should it withdraw the decision? Review all of the evidence, including that piece of evidence, and and look at all the relevant evidence and make a decision.

And the Secretary of State took the right decision, which is to withdraw the decision to to look at the information presented to him, to look at the relevant evidence, including that piece, and reach a view. And in terms of the of the the position of individuals, the evidence, the looking at the evidence across the piece. It did suggest that that a clear majority of 1950 women, 1950s born women did know the state pension age was changing and never had the opportunity to find out more.

But she raises a really important point. There's a lot that's now happened since now. So we have a campaign going to encourage people to check their state pension age. It's very easy to do this now. You can do it online, which most people can, or you can find ways they're not. Those are not digitally, which then tells you when you I've done it myself, I do it every now and again and it tells you when you're going to retire and also how much state pension you'll get.

And we also that by bringing forward the dashboard for those who do have private pensions, they will enable them to find out if they have pots and dashed around different places to find out what they've got. And there's other support that's coming through in the pension schemes bill, again, to make sure that people get to get the kind of help that they need. So we are making sure people will in future get clear and appropriate amounts of notice, and that we will do all that we can to communicate with them in a range of ways.

So the message gets across.
20:14
20:15
20:16
20:17
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Hon. Friend makes a really important point, which is that that's why we're trying to get people to check their state pension people to check their state pension age and check their state pension, particularly for women to know that, to know exactly what they're going to get, especially now that the new state pension is different from the old state pension. It's really important. They all know. But my noble friend also, I thank her for her honesty. But it makes a very important point about the nature of letters is that the department does, did and does write to people sometimes about different things, but that people's recollection of unsolicited letters really isn't very good.

I think. I confess when we discussed this the last time that when I took up this role, I was but I first went to the department, I said, I never got a letter about my pension. I've been averaging one. And they said, well, Minister, we definitely sent them out. I said, well, I didn't get it. And then just over a year ago, I moved house and when I unpacked a box, what should I find at the top of a letter of the box? But a letter from the department telling me about the change of my state pension age.

Now, at that point, I became much more open to the notion that actually it is essentially that most, most people that would not have made a different decision had we sent the letters in that 28 month period appropriately, which is not to say, my Lords, that we should not put all the efforts into communicating as well as we possibly can to all the different ways we can to make sure that everybody knows what's happening. There is little more important when you're coming towards retirement age than knowing you'll be able to pay the bills and look after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yourself, and I hope we'll do all we can to support that. My Lords, as we were not due to return to the bill until 2022, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to the bill until 2022, I beg to move that the House to adjourn during pleasure. Until that point. Lords, the question is to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, the question is to the House to adjourn during pleasure until 8:22. If any of that opinion say content contrary, not content, Has Has to Has to be again in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint or as the case may be.
20:23
20:24
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
over their reproductive life will have an abortion. So that is the reality of very, very many women in the UK today. They will need this reproductive health care. Now, I'm not going to go over what's been said before, but I want to respond to some of the things that have already been said that I think need a response and raise one point that has not been raised, that I think is really important to contextualise our debate today. And this point relates to a comment made by the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, about why we've seen an increase in investigations of what are often entirely natural miscarriages, late apparent abortions or possible abortions.

And I think what we didn't we haven't discussed is the way in which the global political context has changed, and we have an extremely well-funded global campaign around the world that is seeking to reduce women's reproductive rights. And I'm just for context to this, I went to the website for the Organisation of American Historians, an article by historian called Jennifer C Holland, who notes that the anti-abortion movement in its many iterations has radically transformed America's ideas about women's bodies, reproduction, feminist politics, and, of course, foetal life.

In the two centuries, movement has existed, its constituencies, tactics and tools have all changed. What has remained is the effect this has had. Movement has had on women's lives. It has transformed ideas as it has restricted the ability of American women to access reproductive health care. The article goes on to note that until around the 1840s, having an abortion in America was an unexceptional and largely stigma free practice. That was because they had inherited the law from the UK that regarded anything before quickening as not being an issue, which is usually regarded as 4 to 6 months of gestation.

There's a reason why the law that we keep referring back to is from the 1860s. That's when we started to see a global movement, particularly in American driven movement, which is now here in the UK through very well-funded organisations with millions of pounds coming from the US through the huge power today of social media having an impact on whether people will think about these issues, whether they're a medical practitioner, whether they're a police officer, etc. So I think when we look at why we've seen an increase, that's something we really have to consider is the framework in which this debate is being conducted.

Now, I think I also very briefly want to address a long time ago now, the noble Viscount Viscount Hailsham, not in his place, said all investigations should be conducted with the greatest sensitivity. I think what's really become clear from our debate is just how invasive and damaging, and I won't go through the cases that have been rehearsed here today, but we've had GCSE students who've had their phones taken away, who've had their lives totally disrupted, absolute chaos. And that's the reality.

I don't think it's possible to do this sensitively. I do just briefly want to address a number of the amendments that seek to attack. And we've heard a concerted attack today on telemedicine, and I want to link the remarks of the noble Lady Baroness Gerada and the noble Lady Baroness Fox, who both in different, very different tones, perhaps very clearly made, made it obvious that this has been an extremely successful delivery of healthcare. This is a safe, convenient way that has seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion fallen substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking taking place before seven weeks gestation.

And if we were to stop telemedicine, as quite a number of noble Lords this evening have called for, then there would be a drastic increase in waiting times. Women would have to travel long distances for care at even the earliest gestations and many women. The reality would be they would be driven to buying pills online through legal, quasi legal or simply illegal sources. Because of the lack of the availability of that provision. Which brings me to a point to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who spoke about the number of abortions occurring in the UK.

And I hope the noble Lord, and indeed the entire House, would agree to agree that that figure is a reflection of the inadequacy of contraceptive provision in the UK. We can all agree that we want better. I hope that what better contraceptive provision, and therefore that will be a way to reduce the numbers of abortions. I note that a study from Bpas found that nearly half of women found that it was difficult to access contraception because of long wait times, difficulty in securing appointments, and financial financial hurdles when they went to secure their preferred method of abortion.

I have two more brief points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One goes on the noble. I hear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One goes on the noble. I hear what the noble Lady is saying. Is she aware that the World Health Organisation defines a safe abortion as, quote, meaning that abortion as, quote, meaning that they are carried out using a method recommended by the W.H.O. appropriate to the gestational age appropriate to the gestational age and by someone with the necessary skills. And that recommendation 30, in their Safe Abortion guide, states that medical abortion at 12 weeks or greater should only be managed by doctors in a healthcare setting.

In other words, a self-managed medical abortion from 12 weeks gestation is deemed to be unsafe by the W.H.O.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord has just very powerfully made the case for ensuring that we are able to make ensuring that we are able to make that provision as early as possible. I do particularly want to address one amendment that we've only one amendment that we've only really heard addressed from the presenter, which is four, six, one from the noble Lord Lord Bailey, which would subject any female accessing legal abortion under the accessing legal abortion under the age of 16 to a mandatory investigation by police and child protection agencies.

And I think it's worth really stressing this, that since 1985, it's been the law in England and Wales that under 16 can access contraception, abortion and sexual health care confidentiality. The amendment would remove this long standing law from any girl who presents for an abortion. It would harm girls needing abortion care, dissuading them from contacting formal health care providers to avoid being reported to the police and instead pushing them towards unregulated abortion providers. It would make abortion for girls harder to access, with professionals opting out of provision, which would, because of the increased legal risks, evidence of sexual activity related to children under 13 is already reported to the police and child protection agencies as standard practice, and safeguarding is a core component of abortion care.

Now I want to come to one final, one final remark, and this builds on the comments from the noble Lady Baroness Miller, who talked about the briefing that I'm sure most noble Lords have received from some 40 plus organisations that says that clause 191 should remain in this bill, possibly be strengthened by the two amendments that improve it. Now, the noble Lady referred to the fact that this briefing is backed by Royal colleges, including obstetricians and gynaecologists, midwives, nursing general practitioners.

But I think it's worth looking at some of the other 40, some organisations that back this. Among the organisations also backing clause 191 are the TUC, the university and College union, unison, RMT, organisations that represent many of the working women in our society. But also there's been a lot of reference and about minoritized communities. This briefing is also black, backed by Southall black sisters Roshni, which supports black and minority communities affected by domestic abuse. It's supported by Imkaan, which is a national feminist organisation umbrella organisation dedicated to dealing with violence against black and minoritized women and girls.

What we have here is a huge number of the organisations who know and represent and see every day the women who clause 191 could protect, saying please keep clause 191 in the bill.
20:33
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
But I think we first of all, I want to say how I approach this debate. I hadn't intended to speak because it's not the issue. Passionate though people feel about it on both sides of the argument is one that I've always approached, I hope, with an open mind that abortion is a terrible thing in contemplation for anybody concerned. But it's a practical necessity for some, and I think that's something that I've always felt strongly about. But one of the things that you we could have been confused in hearing in the debate today is that the police are investigating every stillbirth and every miscarriage, which is not the case.

If the death takes place or the child's life is lost in a medical setting, then usually the police are never involved. Yeah. The times when it does the police do become involved. It's either there is a medical referral because there is a concern by medics or alternative. It's usually an emergency at home or somewhere else. And the reason that I mentioned this is because I think we have to be realistic. Whatever the decision is made about clause 191 about how the police respond, I think there are some ways the police response could be improved, but I think we do have to give some understanding to the officers who deal with these emergencies, say in a home or at could be a place of work, it could be a public toilet, or it could be that something's discovered in the middle of a field.

The officers at the beginning don't know whether they're dealing with a baby, a late term foetus, a child that might have taken a breath or not. They've just got very confused situation. They can't just walk away from that situation. So the first point I think I would make is that there has to be some sensitive. And I think Baroness Lawlor raised this at a far earlier stage in the debate in terms of sudden death syndrome for babies, is that the police have got far better at dealing with that sort of situation, because probably 30 years ago, we didn't know that sudden death syndrome happened.

Now we do. So that's dealt with in a different way to was dealt with 20 or 30 years ago. But the bottom line is that there's a requirement to freeze the scene in terms of evidence, because it's no good 2 or 3 weeks after the event when a judge, a coroner or someone turned around and said, well, you must have seen this at the scene, you must have gained the evidence and said, well, actually, we didn't seize it. We didn't freeze it. There is a difference between starting an investigation, I would argue, than freezing the scene and making sure you've got as much evidence as available without too much intrusion at that first point.

And the reason it's really important to be clear about this, if we set off and say, well, look, 191 will come into effect. There's certainly the the mother will not be there will not be a criminal investigation. It doesn't stop the need to collect evidence right at the beginning when no one is sure. So I just think we have to be a little bit realistic about this in terms of improving the police investigation process. I would say that there are two things that would be really helpful.

And number one is a senior detective attends the scene as soon as possible, and I would say within an hour to see whether what they're dealing with with some experience. And so that if there is evidence to be seized, it's to the sensitively the family are protected as much as possible. Probably as importantly, unless there is an immediate need to start an investigation, for example, we could imagine the child or a foetus, there might be injury to it, which is not possible to explain by what appears to happen to it medically.

For example, a knife or something else. Then you need to consider that sort of set of circumstances. But I would say that generally within a period of time, let's say 48 hours, the police must seek medical advice about how this other child or how this foetus died and what, if anything, should happen thereafter. So something that starts to create a process that we could all objectively rely upon. I think the second point I would make is that I think there has been a little bit of confusion about the fact that if the woman is coerced, this 191 does not mean that the coercer is innocent.

It has nothing to do with that at all. It is only about the mother. If it's decided that that should go ahead, there's then just two final points that I would like to make. One is that it seems to me in the debate that one thing I've been because I just want to sit here and learn. But the thing I've not heard addressed. The problem, it seems to me, is that there are some women who, at 24 weeks and onward, need help.

Now, whether the state says you can have an abortion or not, they may. So where do they go? Because if it's a backstreet abortionist, we'd all agree that's not a good idea. They can't go to a medical professional who would then be complicit in providing the abortion, perhaps that they can't legally have if they end up with these online tablets designed for under ten weeks, that's not a good outcome, but I'm not sure what the state says. What we say is going to help them in that terrible dilemma, because that need that they feel to have that abortion beyond 24 weeks has not gone away.

And if we abandon them to that decision alone, I don't think we help anyone. So I wouldn't myself. I would like to understand, regardless of the decision about 191, how do women in this position get some help? And just, I hope with an open mind, there were three points that I don't think we've, for me yet, clarified. One thing that I was really interested to hear was that the online availability of pills, designed for under ten weeks are available for people beyond that, and it seems as though that's actually not a good idea.

They're designed for people under ten weeks because that's when they work best. But at 24 weeks beyond, this sounds like an awful option. But if it's your only option, so how are we going to deal with that control of these pills? And I don't understand either from 191 or the existing law, what we intend to do about that. Number two is Baroness Butler-Sloss point, which was that there is this fundamental dilemma that the the woman in the case has not committed a criminal offence, but the people who enable her to do this act do.

And I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds a contradiction. I think there has to be some explanation of how how that gets remedied. And the final one I thought that has been raised is and I wasn't sure about the answers because I don't I wasn't myself. I know Baroness Fox didn't think it was relevant, but this point about sex determination as a reason for abortion, it seems to me that is a real risk. I don't know whether this 191 makes it more or less likely, but I do think it's a risk.

And I don't think anybody should allow that. I don't think it's right. I think we have it now, potentially, but I'm not sure what 19119 if what if 191 makes it more likely. What's the mitigation of that risk. And I don't hear it. So for me I think that does need to be addressed. Should 191 carry on.
20:40
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I know it's. >> My Lords. >> I welcome I think the debate for the for the benefit of the absent the for the benefit of the absent Lord Russell. I will attempt to do this in a paperless fashion, which may explain that if I engage in a level of verbal consciousness in terms of my my remarks, I hope the House will will forgive me. Obviously, there's a range of amendments within this group, many of which I would support, a number of which I have sympathy with with.

There would be a few others that I would oppose, and that's perhaps natural, given the fact that a number of amendments in this group pull at completely opposite directions. But in terms of those that I support particularly, I would draw attention to 460, which would require that before an abortion can take place, that there is at least a clinical appointment and clinical guidance that is given, and that that is the route through which it's done. A number of Lords have come up with a range of solutions in what I think all of us appreciate is quite a sensitive situation and tried to square the circle.

Can I say that the evidence that has been there from where prosecutions have taken place, and where there has been convictions, in almost every case, it has been where there's been an absence of clinical support and where someone has effectively gone on a form of solo run, albeit it may well be that it's been something that has been in very difficult circumstances and taken with a very heavy heart, but nevertheless, that is the route down which they have gone. But in the limited time available, I want to particularly concentrate on support of the amendment of Baroness Monckton, which is the clause 191 stand apart because I believe with respect to the draughters of 191191 is somewhat disingenuous.

It is radical in its implications, and it is dangerous, particularly for women. And let me explain why mention has been made that this doesn't actually change legally the time limits, and that in a strict legal sense is true, but it turns those time limits into a form of facade. If you have a situation in which what remains a criminal act and an illegal act can then be carried out, but the person who actually carries that out is immune from prosecution and protected from prosecution in all circumstances, in blanket circumstances, then you have a law which is utterly ineffective.

It is the equivalent of saying that we are going to retain speed limits on motorways, but that anyone found driving on a motorway beyond that speed limit will not be prosecuted. And I think that is somewhat disingenuous. I think it would be a a more honest approach if an amendment had been brought forward in the bill, which simply says, we want to move the time limits to the point of birth, because that is, in effect, what is being brought in with 191, but is disguised as sort of a mirage that has been put in front of us as to what the changes are.

Secondly, I think this is a radical change. Now there are within this House and within society as a whole, a wide spectrum of views on the issue of abortion. There would be some of us, and I would be one of them, who would take a much more restrictive approach towards abortion and feel that the balance has been got wrong with our current laws. There are others who would take a much more liberal or permissive view, but I suppose the settled compromise between those positions is to say that at present, the determining line of what is legal and what isn't is whether the whether a child can be born and be viable at the point of birth, and points are being made that the times that has shifted from 28 to 24 weeks, there is a good argument that it should come down a little bit more.

But this clause 191 will effectively shift the ground in some cases to being a situation in which that abortion can take place up until the day of birth. And I think that is a radical step which is out of sync with public feeling. Now, I have no doubt that the views that I would have on abortion would be in a minority position throughout the UK, but it is also the case, and we have had statistics quoted of various surveys of 16% believe that it should be still, only 16% believe it should not be a criminal offence if it is beyond the time limits.

Only 1% of the public supports abortion up to birth. This is a very radical solution. It is very radical as well. Change the law compared with other jurisdictions within virtually every country in Europe, abortion is now legal. But for the bulk of those countries, the time limits, generally speaking, are between 12 and 14 weeks. The only country which has as high a A term limit as ourselves is the Netherlands, which in certain circumstances can go to 24 weeks.

Yet this would actually take us very much into the outlier within within Europe. And I think that is of grave concern to people. And I would also finally say as regards the radical nature, because this is going to be a very the most significant change to the 1967 act in practical terms, that has been proposed in the last 59 years, is that we are not bringing this into line with Northern Ireland, because, as Baroness Foster and others have pointed out, telemedicine is the option of that is not available in Northern Ireland, and that anything in Northern Ireland at least goes through the route, which is compatible with 460, which is a a clinical route on that basis.

So we're not comparing like with like if 191 was to go through finally, and I think this has been addressed in a number of occasions by other peers, I'll not go into the details. Therefore, I think this is something that is quite dangerous. It is something which I think increases the opportunities for coercion of women in terms of late term pregnancy. I think at the very least, as Lord Hogan-Howe has indicated, it increases the risk of sex based abortion.

And we've seen quotations from what has happened in Australia and Canada where this has been the case. And I think that's something we've got to be very scared of. I think it is somewhat regressive society that if we move to a point in which we say that in some cases a girl's life is not worth the same as a baby boy's life, that smacks to me of the eugenics of the late 19th century or early 20th century. And so therefore, I think we do need to take a firm line on the issue of of sex based choices, regards abortion and obviously as well, in terms of the dangers, I think two of the things which is difficult for anyone to dispute is that in terms of the risks to the woman, the later the abortion, the greater the risk.

Now we can debate over what the statistics are, but a late abortion will by almost by definition, create a greater level of physical risk to the mother. And secondly, an abortion, which by its nature and legally cannot be carried out with clinical help and is done at home through pills, through the post, at a very late stage removal of that medical support that is potentially there will create a situation which that also creates additional risk to the mother.

So for a range of reasons, it is dangerous. There are a number of amendments which have been put forward which offer either amelioration or potential solutions to that. I think all of those are better than 191. And when we try to grapple with what is a sensitive and difficult issue, irrespective of your views, broadly speaking, on abortion as a whole, I think the one thing to my mind is that clause 191 is not the solution to those problems.

I'd like to support the. by.
20:48
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
A number of noble Lords, but I particularly like to support the amendment that's been moved by amendment that's been moved by Baroness Monckton that this clause 191 should not stand part of the bill. I do so for a number of reasons. Some are to do with principle, some are to do with parliamentary procedure. But I would say that I think just listening now to the noble Lord Lord Weir and before that to the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe. There are plenty of reasons why this deserves the kind of detailed examination that we have been giving it on the floor of your Lordships House today, whatever our personal views may be, abortion isn't just a medical procedure.

It's not just about choice. It ends the life of a nascent human being. It's what Viscount Hailsham said very early in our debate is about the sanctity of human life. That is one of the key questions that we must always wrestle with when we come to this issue. Since 1967, when Parliament permitted what was supposed to be terminations carried out in rare and exceptional cases, there have now been more than 11 million abortions in the United Kingdom. That's one life taken across the UK every two minutes.

And since 1990, we have permitted eugenic abortions on the grounds of disability right up to birth. And that includes things like cleft palate or clubfoot. 90% of all babies with Down's syndrome are now aborted in the United Kingdom, according to NHS figures. My Lords, laws have profound consequences. We're not a debating society. We do send signals. Laws to some extent are like semaphore. They send a signal into society. They have profound consequences. Social, personal, economic, demographic and not just for the unborn child.

Clearly, from what noble Lords have said this afternoon, of course, for the women and everybody else who is involved. But the amendments in the names of Baroness Maclean, Baroness Meyer, Baroness Lawlor, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Stroud, Baroness Foster, and Baroness Eaton, and my noble friend Baroness O'Loan, make clear that this does have profound consequences for women, and that we should take that into into account as well. Some noble Lords have touched on the question of law and whether international norms require us to do this.

I would just remind the committee that there is no such recognised right as the right to abortion in the European Convention on Human Rights, decisions from the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that the convention does not guarantee a right to have an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to perform abortions. The court has also been clear that article eight, which guarantees the right to private and family life, does not confer a right to abortion. The court has ruled that domestic laws that prohibit abortion do not violate article eight.

In contrast, My Lords, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, states that the child and I quote, need special safeguards and care, including appropriate leading protection before, before, as well as after birth. We need to ask ourselves, when we talk about conforming with what other jurisdictions do, how well we conform to those norms as well. My Lords, things have changed as a result of the 2022 Health and Care Act.

I took part in the proceedings of that legislation. On the fourth day, an amendment was brought forward to make permanent the Covid arrangements permitting at home abortions. Let me remind the committee of the words of the then health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, who told the House when announcing the end of the policy in February 2022. And I quote that it was always intended to be a temporary measure. Too often, though, my Lords, temporary measures become permanent and new arguments are brought forward to justify them.

One of the key arguments, which has been forward in support of clause 191 today, is the alleged rise in the prosecution of women in recent years, but that if there has been a rise, is intrinsically linked to the abortion pills by post. I was particularly struck that for the 160 years prior to 2022, it was acknowledged by Jonathan Lord, now of the Royal College of Gynaecologists, for the former medical director of Marie Stopes. That, and I quote, only three women have ever been on trial between the 1st of January 2012 and the 31st of July, 2022.

Data from the Metropolitan Police shows that of 42 arrests under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act and the Life Preservation Act, 34 of those arrested were men, and of the seven who were ultimately charged, none of them, none of them, my Lords, were women. Prosecutions of women, I am glad to say, remain very rare indeed, and I know this, but there is agreement across the House because we've all said it during the course of the debate today, that any investigation of a woman following a pregnancy loss is a matter that requires deep compassion and sensitivity.

And like others who have spoken in the debate, those of us who are fathers have experienced the loss of a child, the loss of a child as a result of miscarriage. We know what that means for men as well as for women. What it means to everyone. It's the loss of a new child. Either life begins at conception or it doesn't. If it does, then the sanctity of human life. But the Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hailsham described earlier on surely must be a consideration.

I acknowledge that there may be circumstances where accessing care and support may be less straightforward, but that does not justify the removal of in-person clinical safeguards altogether, particularly where they are well documented. Risks around gestational error, coercion, and missed complications. A compassionate and appropriate response is surely to address access problems through properly funded local in-person services. Targeted support for vulnerable women who may be coerced or even trafficked, rather than relying on a remote model that prioritises speed and convenience over safety.

There are, my Lords, radical alternatives to the defeat, which many have said in this debate. Wherever we come from on the substantive issue, many have said abortion itself isn't something that is good or desirable. We must do all we can to try and find alternatives to it. My Lords, instead of asking a select committee to examine the sorts of arguments we've heard today, instead of having pre-legislative scrutiny, instead of examining those dangers to women, instead of examining the inevitable increase in the number of terminations, instead of looking for alternatives which promote the well-being of both a mother and child, instead of even having an impact assessment as one noble Lord rightly referred earlier on proceeding without an impact assessment, proceeding without any of those normal requirements in promoting legislation, this new clause was added simply as a backbench amendment at a late stage of a Bill which is not primarily about abortion, and it was given a cursory 46 minutes of backbench debate in the House of Commons that would not have happened and did not happen in my day in the House of Commons.

My Lords, this is no way to make law and the government will be well advised to withdraw this clause pending further consideration of the practical issues that it raises. The uncomfortable truth which all of us must wrestle with, irrespective of our in-principle views on abortion, is that with clause 191 on the statute book, if a woman intentionally induces an abortion at a very late stage and the baby dies in utero or during the process and is not born alive, there would be no criminal offence available in respect of her actions, regardless of gestation.

My Lords, abortion pills are powerful drugs. They can involve significant bleeding, pain and complications, and they can be tragically misused. The purpose of an in-person consultation is not delay or obstruction, but to provide a vital clinical and safeguarding checkpoint. And I would urge noble Lords, even if they cannot support the substantive objections that I have made to clause 191, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to at least support amendment 46, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

And I hope that when we return to this question at Report stage, there may have been some movement in that direction.
20:58
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
The amendment 46 one. >> The amendment 46 one. >> Which does have an amendment to the Abortion Act. I think it's the Abortion Act. I think it's worth briefly stepping back, as I completely understand why people have very different views on whether this is right or wrong or similar, but whether this is just a healthcare treatment. But we do have a law in place that puts restrictions on when abortion can happen. Now, my Lords, it feels perhaps that those restrictions are really just a lip service.

I say that is because 2013, 2016, the number of abortions was about 185,000. In England and Wales, that is now at 278,000. And we see a particular change start to happen in back in 2019 statistics. And for the first time, people were allowed to take the second abortion pill at home. So first bill had to be done in some kind of clinical setting. Then people could take the second pill at home, and we start to see a jump at that point to about 207,000.

Now 36% of abortions. I think I'm right in saying were taken at that point, and that's about 75,000 where we saw the second pill be taken at home. We're now in a situation where, with the significant increase of 50% uplift from a decade ago, 72% of abortions are now undertaken by both pills being taken at home. That's about 200,000 abortions in the year 2023. So there's been a significant change. And what it's worth, I actually think that's quite a sad figure.

I appreciate there'll be people in this chamber on this committee who don't care what the number is. They really don't care. It's a woman's right to choose. I don't agree with that, but I and I won't even respect that point of view. But I understand it, I understand it. So what has happened, as has been eloquently already pointed out, is we're now in a situation where Parliament is still agrees there's a crime that may have been committed. But through clause 191.

The person carrying the foetus cannot be held in any way responsible. So the point of my amendment is actually to say, well, instead of just good faith by the providers. And I think there's an element of my noble friend's amendment 46, one way of making sure that these services that are provided are done in a lawful way. My suggestion is that we move instead of the medic, just in good faith. We move to beyond reasonable doubt. Now that might be going a bit too far, but I think it's important to say, well, who is responsible? The government does not keep details of how many pills are issued every year.

We don't know. We don't know. The only reason that we have any sense of statistics is the return of the HSA form four form, and we still don't know the figures for 2024, because it's got more and more complicated about understanding about how many of these abortions are happening in this country. So I think there is something to be said about how we try and control this in a way. And that might be the answers of going back to having some face to face interaction before distributing pills.

It could be, whichever the amendments we've already debated in four, 60 and the like, but I do think that someone, somewhere has to take responsibility and be held to account. It has to be accountability when there could be breaking of a criminal law, which is largely been accepted in this country. Now, we could there could have actually been in this group amendments about changing it from 24 weeks to 22 and the like, but I don't think that's the key point here.

And it's no surprise that people concerned about clause 191 think this will lead to an even greater number of abortions, going beyond the ten weeks that are supposed to be set aside for these pills by post, because that's where we've seen the criminal prosecutions and investigations happen pretty much through that way. So I think Parliament needs to decide, do we agree this restrictions that we have right now? And if we do, who are we going to hold to account? I think it should be the people who provide the pills.

They are supposed to be the safeguard. They're supposed to be the check. And we've got to work out a way that that check is meaningful. So it's not just left to quite a clumsy, perhaps investigation which the noble Lord. Hogan-howe talked about. Sorry, I was about to call you Bernard, so we need to work that through. And that's why I think the providers are key to this. So that's why I tabled my particular 461A, which is not seeking to change the rest of the Abortion Act, but was to try and make sure that we have there.

I give way to the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Baroness. Can she help me to clarify what her amendment would really mean? Currently, as a provider or anybody Currently, as a provider or anybody who counsels a woman seeking abortion, it will be taken in good abortion, it will be taken in good faith. What the the woman might say to them about her gestation, but to them about her gestation, but she her amendment would move it to beyond reasonable doubt, which is at the level of a criminal court and not a social justice or a civil court.

That would mean that every health professional who counsels the woman would have to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In every case, that would mean that it will have to be evidence of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beyond reasonable doubt. One of the reasons that I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the reasons that I've chosen that phrase, particularly at this stage, might reconsider it for Report stage, as we are talking Report stage, as we are talking about a crime, if a crime if this about a crime, if a crime if this happens beyond the terms of which the law sets it is a crime. And the law sets it is a crime. And that's why this change that happened from moving to taking the second pill at home to then just having both pills wherever and you don't know, we.

The case to which the noble Baroness Falkner referred earlier was actually another lady got the pills, gave it to the chap, which was then applied unlawfully, obviously. And the other lady was also convicted and it was suspended sentence. But there was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability. So I'll give way. Isn't that this. Problem that. In criminal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In criminal. Cases where the. Reasonable doubt test applies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You often have external evidence. Such as witnesses or documents. What my noble friend is talking What my noble friend is talking about here is really an oral conversation, and the only material conversation, and the only material available to the service provider will be what the prospective mother has to say. Very difficult on that basis to come to a conclusion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, that is why I'm not convinced that the situation we convinced that the situation we have is satisfactory. In order to uphold the law. Now, the other uphold the law. Now, the other reason, I guess, why I'm why noble peers are concerned about clause peers are concerned about clause one and one is because the Tonia Antoniazzi who put this forward, has said publicly she's very comfortable with abortions happening at 37 weeks and no problem at all.

But I appreciate that's not what everybody is in this point is in favour of. But I forgive me. Lord Patel. I want to speak to just a few other amendments and I'm conscious of the time of tonight. So the other thing that I am keen to just mention is about amendment 409 and the name of my noble friend, Baroness Eaton. Now, this is quite specific amendment to the to clause 191. But when it comes to this, this actually got debated in the Lords in the Commons in 2014.

And the House then said we're informed that it was completely unlawful. Of course, the situation we have, yes. You cannot use the reason of the sex to be the reason for the abortion. That would be unlawful. But one of the ways that this often gets used is that this would cause me huge harm or distress if I continue. If I had a boy or a girl, contrary to the wishes of my family. So it can be used as a an alternative reason in order to access the various grounds in that regard, my Lords, obviously we're covering a lot of issues in this one group, which might be a reminder to people, but perhaps spread over a few more groups.

But I do think that we need to tread carefully. I'm conscious that the Commons did pass this by huge majority. It was. I felt it was just very blanket, almost like we wanted to decriminalise abortion entirely as how it came across. But nevertheless, it's our role to consider about is this best way? Is this where we want to head, or do we actually want to make sure that we find a better way of upholding the law that we do today without the unnecessary affliction that some expectant mothers may fear?
21:08
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to amendments 456 and 460, briefly to amendments 456 and 460, but I have been saddened by the lack of appreciation of the protective role that the criminal law actually brings. And I really appreciated the comments of the noble and learned Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, but I think it is important to actually consider some of some of the cases that have resulted in convictions that have not been controversial. Sarah Cat reported in the BBC on the 17th of September 2012, aborted her baby at 39 weeks.

She was prosecuted and sentenced for eight years. The body was never found. She disposed of that the authorities realised because she had been for certain hospital appointments and no birth was registered, they went and investigated, she said she'd had a legitimate abortion and it turns out when they searched her computer because it was 2012 that she had got pills from Mumbai at that point, took those pills. Her husband knew nothing of what was happening. Now, I think it's important to know that was not.

She was sentenced to eight years. And I think that's important, particularly in relation to the amendments that are retrospective to pardon people, etc. How will those connected to that lady grandparents and potentially her husband feel if that is no longer an offence and it was not controversial at the time? That is what we are dealing with here, that that would no longer be a crime at 39 weeks. I am having listened through many hours now, unsure about the clarity and process of the law here.

We. I think we've seen much suggestion that the pills by post are causing more investigations and the nature of those investigations, but we need more detail and more evidence, I think, to legislate properly. Many noble Lords have have tried to predict, you know, women's behaviour will do this, women's behaviour will do that. Things on the street, as the noble Lord Lord Bailey said, has said will be different. But we don't know that because we've not had that really important pre-legislative process.

Also, we've had the evidence that there is, in fact sex selective abortion going on and we have no equality impact assessment. I think that is a big flaw if we legislate on this. But 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 that ten week window. Now, of course, one point that hasn't been covered is that this it can often be that obviously the ambulance crew are the first people through the door.

So I would be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could actually give some clarity and restate what is the law for those emergency providers faced with that situation now, concepts like birth, born alive and the Earth First breath are not that easy to apply in these scenarios. In this scenario, and with the advances of medical technology, the law on birth, actually, if you look at the Medical Law Review, very interesting article by Elizabeth Romanis in winter 2020, looking at technology that now you can operate on a foetus, there's a potential of having artificial wombs that 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? There's also the the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 article 45, which is very strict unless it's urgency or necessity to ensure that people who are not medically qualified do not intervene in the birth of a baby, it's actually an offence, a criminal offence to do that. So I think we need to know from the noble Lady, the Minister, the boundary there as well, if there might be people with the woman as she's taken the pills in a late stage abortion.

And finally, my Lords, many noble Lords have said that this only had 46 minutes of backbench time. In the other place, I've pondered whether there's an opposite to the word filibuster, because I think it applies to this particular situation. But 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 legislative scrutiny and the consultation that is vital to ensure that we pass laws.

And I don't think this one is fit at the moment without the involvement of the public and consultation, white

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper, etc. My Lords. Debates today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are of tremendous. Importance. And I think of comparable. Difficulty to the painful debate Difficulty to the painful debate about assisted dying, though that other bill has rather overshadowed this clause. But I think, in effect, what we're talking about here does have some of the characteristics of a Trojan horse. It is a bit like a a Trojan horse. It is a bit like a private member's bill hidden inside a government bill. And we've just got one day to consider the clause and to try and 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 inspection services, inspections of social services for children, and I saw a lot of the very worst of what
21:13
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
parents, both male and female, will do to their children. And on that bill, debates have often been dominated by justified concerns for children's welfare and safety. And children's welfare and safety. And yet this clause goes the other way in explicitly legitimising the in explicitly legitimising the ultimate harm of killing a viable child. If it's done by the mother, even where there is clear dishonesty or other wrongdoing by the mother, and no mitigating circumstances whatever, I'm not sure that that's a position that the majority of the public will ever see as progressive, inevitable, the way that the country should go.

And it is, as various people have pointed out, a de facto removal of the term limit on abortion, coupled with telemedicine, with with self-declaration. And what we have is, is something that is, I believe, really quite significantly unsafe. And where we simply don't have either the data or the monitoring systems to get the confidence, the level of confidence that we should have. And by the way, I think we know that self-declaration and trust isn't 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 and some of the country's woes come down to needing to find the political courage to say and deal with that.

So I too support amendment 456 in all the the discussions today, people have shown, noble Lords have shown that there have been remarkably few prosecutions of women for for these offences, and nor has there been a big increase in prosecutions, especially women recently, which does suggest that the police and prosecutors are not taking cases to court. Unreasonably, the increase in police investigations and prosecutions could be justified if the increased flexibility the telemedicine scheme is being misused to procure illegal late abortions by even a small proportion of women using the service.

And it may be actually that removing telemedicine would be the most effective way of removing reducing the number of investigations. And if there's a problem with inappropriate and unduly protracted investigations. Well, as the noble and Leonard, Baroness Butler-sloss and the noble Baroness, Lady Faulkner have said, it's that process that should be addressed directly. And by the way, the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley is absolutely right to say that the process should not be the punishment. Investigation should be swift, as sensitive as they can be, and prosecution decisions should be taken promptly.

One point that I don't think I've heard from anyone. I did recently ask proponents of the clause, whether by the same logic, the killing by a woman of her living child or her partner, which of course nearly always happens in distressing circumstances should be pre-emptively legitimised irrespective of the particular facts. And on this point, I got no answer at all. And I feared the uncomfortable truth is that it is simply easier to sway people, to give the mother's interests absolute priority when the child harmed has as yet no face, no voice, so that the very real conflict between the child's rights and needs and those of the mother, which and the mother absolutely does have rights and needs to, can be denied.

And I do find it startling when people can ignore that conflict and argue that abortion is merely a matter of women's healthcare, so that it's decriminalisation should be uncontroversial. The requirement in amendment 456 for the explicit consent of the attorney general would, I believe, discourage expending police resources on cases unlikely to pass that threshold and so restrict disproportionate investigations. And I think that would address the concerns of campaigners, but without upending the consensus that we reached as a society.

When the Abortion Act was first passed, after enormous amounts of national discussion and debate, and I would suggest that it would restore the situation that seems to have characterised the early decades of the current legislative settlement, and it could be complemented by the statutory defence that my noble friend Viscount Hailsham proposed, an amendment 456 beyond amendment 456. Many noble Lords have proposed other safeguards, without which clause 191 is clearly unsafe and should not stand. I'd like to suppress support in particular for amendments four 6461, 461 A and 461 D, to which last I put my name, which would variously remove pills by post entirely, make abortion providers liable for verifying gestational age, and introduce stronger criminal sanctions on those who prescribe abortion drugs illegally or assist women with late term abortions in other ways.

And finally, there are important points to be discussed about the data collection and analysis and publication, which should go ahead of bringing this into force and alongside as a monitoring scheme to flag up where abuses are in fact arising. But these, I think, fall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be addressed in later groups. My Lords, we have. All received briefings on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All received briefings on this clause and that this clause unamended would allow abortion up to birth. And I want to address that in two ways. Firstly, clause 191 does not fully decriminalise abortion or alter the legal time limits, and the legal framework limits, and the legal framework remains for medical staff, which the noble Lady Baroness Fox set out very clearly. It does have the very clearly. It does have the advantage of stopping women who are facing investigation after miscarriage or stillbirth, as the noble Lord Lord Paddick set out, but we should be clear that it would also ensure that the very small number of women that have
21:19
21:20
21:20
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
that is what clause one and one does set out to do. Secondly, I do understand that some are concerned that this change in law may increase later term abortions, and increase later term abortions, and I clearly later term abortions do have higher rates of complications than lesser gestation abortions, than lesser gestation abortions, but that still remains relatively low. But we can look at evidence from other jurisdictions. And whilst the noble Lord Lord Weir is quite right to point out that across Europe there are lots of different gestation limits, actually, by bringing women into the decriminalisation would bring us in line with 50 other jurisdictions, including France, New Zealand, Australia and indeed the whole of the United States, where no women can be prosecuted for having her own abortion.

And so we can look at this evidence from these other jurisdictions which show that abortion law doesn't affect the likelihood of late term abortions, and decriminalising women from abortion does not cause or correlate with any increase in third trimester abortions. And that's confirmed by the W.H.O. and robust global evidence from countries including Canada, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. As the noble Lady, Lady Miller pointed out earlier. And I think if we can just look at those in a little bit more detail and where the time is.

Late in Canada in 1988, abortion was completely decriminalised to be fully legal, regulated as a health service with no criminal law or gestational limits, going much, much further than clause 191 does here. And data over decades shows a stable pattern of early abortion and no increase in later abortion. Despite that complete decriminalisation in Northern Ireland, where abortion was decriminalised in 2019, almost 9 in 10 abortions happened before ten weeks, and there have been no reported cases of women ending their pregnancy at late gestations.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Outside of medical frameworks. I appreciate the point that's being made, but would you also being made, but would you also accept that in Northern Ireland it's illegal and you can't get the telemedicine IT pills by post is not an option. So the only route that any woman in Northern Ireland can use is through the clinical can use is through the clinical route and within, therefore the time frame. So it's pretty obvious as to why there's not been then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as to why there's not been then prosecutions, because there hasn't that. It's not the prosecutions I'm referring to. It's actually the cases themselves. And I do absolutely acknowledge that telemedicine is not available through medical services in Northern Ireland. But what we are seeing in Northern Ireland is that pills are available illegally online, which people are purchasing, but because women are decriminalised, they are never prosecuted for taking them. The proportion of abortion procedures carried out before nine weeks gestation has increased in most countries with more liberal abortion laws, and as explained by the noble Lady Baroness Gerada.

That's why this change is so strongly supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, nursing midwives, general practitioners and psychiatrists, and many other health experts. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Thornton that the meeting with these experts is really helpful, and I think perhaps we could do another one of those before report, so that noble Lords who have further medical questions can can take those. My Lords amendments 455 4564568456B and C and 461F would retain criminalisation of women in relation to abortion law and would still face arrest, investigation and prosecution under the law.

I very much appreciate the efforts to find some compromise in 406 and 456C, and it's important to discuss if this is indeed possible. But the harm that caused 191 is seeking to address would remain if these amendments were to be included in the bill, as investigations would still be ongoing and we would still see women being pulled into the criminal justice system. As the noble Lord Lord Pannick set out. My Lords also want to briefly touch on vulnerable women, and it's important, of course, to consider how this clause and those amendments would impact vulnerable women who could be in a situation of abuse or coercion.

And noble Lords have rightly raised concern around this. And importantly, it's non-consensual. Abortion would remain a crime under under clause 191, including in the terrible case that noble Lady, Lady Faulkner referred to earlier. And experts in this area have been really clear that this clause would be beneficial to women in this situation, and the threat of criminal sanction can dissuade women from seeking help or even telling anybody what has happened to them. And that's why it's supported by so many violence against women and girls groups, including The End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Rape Crisis, Calm and Nirvana and many more.

And perhaps these groups came and did a very helpful briefing to noble Lords, and perhaps we could replicate that again before before report, because I do understand people's people's concern around coercion here. But I think we should listen carefully to the experts in this area. My Lords, I just want to address telemedicine and amendment Bill 60, which would repeal this provision. And I do want to present what's happened since its introduction. And like other noble Lords, I was here for that legislation. A large national cohort study undertaken in England and Wales and published in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that telemedical abortion is safe, effective, improves care and is preferred by women, and it is essential now for abortion provision being used by over 100,000 women every year in England and Wales, and that's full telemedicine.

It is meant that once a woman decides that she wants an abortion, she is able to access it more quickly and therefore more safely. And since the introduction of telemedicine, as the noble Lady said earlier, we've seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion falling substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking place before seven weeks gestation. And as we know, it's much safer to have an abortion as early as possible. It also provides a safe and confidential way for women in abusive, controlling relationships to receive abortion care.

Safeguarding is an essential part of abortion care provision, and any parent, any patient that causes professional concern, is provided with a full safeguarding assessment and pre and post abortion support and counselling is available to all patients. Abortion providers are regulated by the Care Quality Commission, NHS England Commissioners, the Department of Health and Social Care all have regulatory oversight. I did just want to just address the medical complications point. The number of noble Lords have raised this, and there has been 54,000 complications to medical abortion over the last five years.

But that covers all gestations for all forms of medical abortion in clinic, at home, telemed or in person scan or no scan at any gestation. And so those complications are not reflective of pre ten week medical abortion and not exclusive to telemedical abortion care. No information has been included before 2021 when telemedicine was launched, and so there's no analysis to see what has happened since that happened. It also just looks at the basic numbers of complications rather than rate. So it is an incomplete picture.

As noble Lords have mentioned, there have been over 1 million abortions have taken place in that five year period. So the number of abortions have gone up, which means the number of medical abortions have gone up. And therefore, sadly, complications have gone up. But rather than just looking at the total figures, when you look at the rate shown by the latest abortion statistics and the hospital episode statistics, the rate of complications for medical abortion has fallen by 25% since telemedicine was introduced.

And that is why telemedicine is supported so strongly by medical professionals. Put simply, it is better care for women. My Lords, telemedicine is a choice for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clinically eligible women, not a requirement. A women can always be used. Lord Babudu question. Thank you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Babudu question. Thank you for giving way. You talk about the no complications complications no complications complications reduced in telemedical abortions, but the NHS statistics have shown a rise in the number of complications rise in the number of complications following the use of telemedical abortions, such that there were 12,000 people presented to hospital 12,000 people presented to hospital last year. The other thing I'd like to ask the noble Lady is, is she aware that in Northern Ireland there is no collection of any statistics other than statistics delivered in accordance with the law, so that there are statistics on medical abortions and statistics on surgical abortions.

And that's it. There are no other statistics. So these references to abortion being decriminalised in Northern Ireland, I don't see where she's getting the the evidence to support what she's saying about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble Ladies first point, as I said in my words, I do acknowledge that the complications acknowledge that the complications number has gone up. What we've actually seen is the rate has gone down because abortions have increased. So even though that rate increased. So even though that rate has gone up, when you look at the actual and I'm very happy to to share the figures, when you look at share the figures, when you look at the actual rate, it does show that there has dropped by 25% on the Northern Ireland statistics.

That comes from the Northern Ireland comes from the Northern Ireland Medical Association, who provide the abortions. I completely agree with the noble Lady that we the more statistics, new information we can have on this, the better so that we are able to make fully informed decisions. But again, very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to share that with the noble Lady. The statistics in Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The statistics in Northern Ireland are collected from the health trusts who deliver the abortions. They're not collected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from anyone else. Yes, from the people who provide the abortions. And as I say, I'm the abortions. And as I say, I'm very happy to to share that information with the noble Lady. So, my Lords, telemedicine is a choice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as I. The noble Lady, and the information she provides. Please comment on the November 2023 government review, which says that the complication rate is higher

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when you are over the 20 weeks gestation. So I'm specifically referring to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm specifically referring to telemedicine here under ten weeks provided. So that's what I'm talking about. The complication rates. I have absolutely already acknowledged that later medical acknowledged that later medical abortions do have a higher rate of complications. And that's why actually telemedicine is such a good thing, because it's bringing good thing, because it's bringing the abortions earlier. And as we heard, over half now are under heard, over half now are under seven weeks gestation. My Lords, again, I'm running out of time, so I will stop there on telemedicine.

But I do think that maintaining the option of telemedicine up to ten weeks gestation for women who want it is safe, effective and helps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure that women who have made the decision to have an abortion can access it as early as possible. So, before the noble Lady sits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, before the noble Lady sits down, she's a vote. Foreign jurisdictions a lot. But is she aware that a lot of foreign jurisdictions, as the noble Lord jurisdictions, as the noble Lord Lord Weir said, explained, have lower term limits whereby an lower term limits whereby an abortion might be legal? And she's mentioned the United States, where she said there is no prosecution for abortion at all. I wonder whether she's aware of how many states in the United States simply don't allow abortion.

So it's hardly surprising that there are no prosecutions if you don't allow abortion at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You hear what the noble Lady is saying. What I was talking about was decriminalisation of women. So those are the jurisdictions which never prosecute a woman for ending her own pregnancy. So I absolutely acknowledge, as I did previously, that gestational limits are different, whether medical professionals, including decriminalisation, are different. I completely acknowledge that. But in those states, in over 50 states, including all of the United States, even those with the most strict even those with the most strict abortion law, no woman is ever prosecuted for ending her pregnancy.

And I think that's important to acknowledge when people say that this is a huge change, which is going to really impact behaviour, when actually our law dates from 1967. Lots of people who who made abortion legal after that never criminalised women.
21:31
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
OK. >> I want. >> To thank start by thanking the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for setting out the Manor Castle for setting out the context behind this debate. This debate takes place against a backdrop of, in this country, large scale funding by anti-abortion groups across the piece and and almost daily articles in our newspapers about anti-abortion. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why we have seen an increase in women being arrested. And noble Lords were very careful in the statistics that they selected.

Some of them chose to talk about 2018, 2022. It is undeniable that in the last 3 or 4 years, there has been a huge increase in the number of women being being investigated. I want today there are those there are three groups of people in in your Lordships' House. There are those who are opposed, 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, and I am speaking to my amendment 459, see who support women's rights informed, make informed choices, and who has for the last ten years followed this debate about decriminalisation.

And to those who say that this was brought in as a measure in the back by the back door suddenly sprung on the House of Commons, that is wrong. For ten years we have been discussing decriminalisation. Dame Diana Johnson brought bills in another place. We have had a great deal of discussion about it at different stages, but then there is a second, a third group, and that's the people who have doubts and their speeches of the noble Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss and Baroness Nye and Lord Hogan-Howe typified some of them.

And they are the people who I want to talk to today, because they are the people who've got some concern that this is not right. In my preparation for today's debate, I've been thinking about it for several weeks. I thought about a parallel, and I went to the point that Lord Pannick went to, I'm sorry, he's 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, and I actually went with the assistance of the library to go and look through the hansards of that debate.

And the parallels are striking. At that point, when it had come into Parliament, there was what was the first criticism that this has been sprung upon us, that this is too big an issue to be brought in in this way. And yet there had been ten years of debate prior to that by people who thought this is not the right way to deal with this issue. There were people who the people in the church who had great debates about it. And I would suggest to noble Lords that you should go and read those hansards because the debates both here and in the House of Commons are profound.

They are succinct, and I would say they are perhaps something that we should relearn, because it's quite clear that there is no correlation between length of debate and quality of debate. And they were people who were profoundly concerned about a moral issue and about what the signal would be that Parliament would be giving out were it to take this very brave step. And I want to quote one, just one speech in that which was the speech which took place not in the House of Lords, but in the House of Commons.

It was a speech that was given by that Third Reading by the conservative Minister, Charles Fletcher-cooke. And he said this because we've 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 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, my Lords, that there is a very strong and clear parallel. It's what the noble Lord Lord Pannick said to us. There are two evils here, and we're having to make a decision between two of them. He went on one of the consequences of removing the ambit of the criminal law, this this hitherto crime of attempted suicide is that it may be feared that some people may not be reached by the Mental Health Act, that there will be some who will not submit themselves to voluntary treatment, and cannot be persuaded by their medical advisors 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 went on to say, we would all agree that it would be quite wrong either to keep the present criminal structure, or to impose a purely new one for what we believe to be a very small minority. But we shall watch the situation, and the government will keep an open mind, and 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.

Now. The two noble Lords today talked about deterrence because 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 a less grave, grave matter. I don't agree with that, and I don't think I would hope that if I was well, I was alive in 1961, but only just. I hope if I'd taken part of it, I would have understood the point that they were making then that we are making now.

If somebody is so desperate that they do this, they are not going to be in the right place if they end up in the criminal justice system. It's a medical issue. And for all the speeches that we've heard today, all the people who've been trying to chip away at telemedicine, the one thing that you've not dealt with was the point that was made to us by the people, by the people who do see these desperate women, that 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.

I listened to the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, and I wondered whether there are other situations to which police officers go when somebody has done something illegal, something some illegal, that might have had a profound effect on their health. And the first thing that comes into a policeman's mind is that they should go to the criminal justice system, rather than making sure that they are they are medically safe. And that's what I think we are doing all the way through here. We are treating women.

We are treating these women as being exceptional. So I think that we should do what we've been doing for the last ten years and say 191 Baroness Fox is right. It could be far more radical than it is. It's not. It is a very small message, small, small adjustment to say that if women are that desperate, then they deserve medical treatment. And all of these amendments that have been put today are just barriers in the way of that. Hello. I hope that in this house, just as down, down at the other end, people will realise that we're back to that same dilemma that we were in 1961 and that we will do the right thing by desperate people.
21:38
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. 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'm 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 are 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 the merits of the substance of clause 191, and the second is the process by which it became part of a government bill on that first matter, that is an issue of conscience. And on this the opposition does not and will not take an official position. I acknowledge there are a multitude of views across the House and indeed within my own party, that diversity of opinion is to be expected and indeed 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 at Report stage 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 backbench debate and 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. And because it was an amendment to legislation brought in at 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, 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 in a public bill committee, where witnesses would be invited to give evidence. None of these steps have been taken. Now, whatever one's views on the merits of clause 101, that is not a recipe for good law.

Let us just pause and reflect on the on the wide variety of issues that have arisen today. And the amendments themselves cover a lot of ground. We've discussed issues of police procedure and investigation, a panoply of medical issues, issues around potential coercion, issues of telemedicine, issues of prosecution, policy, issues around vulnerability of women. There are a multitude of difficult and intricate issues to cover. It's interesting that when Parliament considered the Abortion Act of 1967 and 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.

And indeed, your Lordships' House is currently considering another piece of social legislation the terminally ill adults end of Life Bill. And 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. And of course, that's absolutely right. These are matters that, if we get wrong, could have severe and perverse consequences. And again, whether noble Lords support clause 101 or not, this House is being asked to pass judgement on a provision to alter fundamentally the legal status of abortion for right or wrong, without the possession of all the necessary evidence.

And indeed during the debate on this clause. In the other place, when discussing wider abortion law reforms, Tonia antoniazzi herself, who as we know moved clause 101, said, and I quote, 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, she said. I agree 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, but that has not happened with clause one by one, and I think it fair to say, whatever one's views on the moral element of the change, clause 191 is itself so far reaching and consequential of such magnitude that it is questionable whether it is appropriate for it to be bolted onto the side of a crime and policing bill.

But finally, can I turn to the approach of the government to clause 191? Because, my Lords, ultimately this is now a clause in a government bill, and the government might or might not have wanted it in the bill. But regardless of their neutrality, this clause is now in their bill. And if the bill passes with clause 191 remaining, then it will be the government's job to implement it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will unequivocally be government legislation. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. Believe that the. 379 MPs who voted for this were duped into it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in some way. I don't think I suggested that. I don't think I suggested that for I don't think I suggested that for a moment. I don't accept that at a moment. I don't accept that at all. But I'm pointing to the the fact that this is a government's bill, and it may not be the government's place to take a view on issues of conscience such as this, but it is their role and their duty to ensure the coherence of the statute book and general good governance, and, of course, to implement the law of the land.

So I have a couple of questions for the noble Lady. The Minister. Is the government satisfied with the process by which clause 191 has been included in their bill, and if not, do they have any concerns whatsoever about that process? And further, the government now faces a binary choice. Either they want the clause to remain in the bill, or do they or they do not. And it is not enough, with the greatest respect for the government to sit on the fence.

And I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to answer that question as well. In conclusion, my Lords, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we take no view on the substantive issues of conscience here, but we do have concerns about the process. This reform should have been subject to the usual consultations. It is a hugely complex, controversial, intricate area of policy making which deserves the fullest legislative process possible. And it has not had the usual procedures and rigorous scrutiny from start to finish of the legislative process.

My Lords, that is a matter of very great regret. recognises.
21:47
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
That there are strongly held.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Views across your Lordships House on this very sensitive issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, is, of course, correct that the government maintains a neutral stance on abortion in neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales, and we remain of the view that it is for Parliament the view that it is for Parliament to decide whether it is in favour of this or not. And that's not sitting on the fence that is actually deferring to the will of Parliament.

It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, allowing your Lordships to vote according to conscience and the government will not stand in the way of change. If that is what Parliament decides. A number of noble Lords have asked questions. Noble Lord Lord Bailey, noble Lady Baroness O'Loan, the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough about what does the government intend to do in certain situations? And I remind your Lordships that this was not a government amendment, and therefore it is a matter for your Lordships.

If this is the will of Parliament, then the government will ensure that the law is enacted. But that said, the government must of course, comment on the practical effects, workability and coherence with the statute book of any proposed legislative amendments. On the 17th of June last year, the Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls set out in the Other place observations on what is now clause 191. As this is already a matter of public record, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for not repeating what she said, save that I have been asked the specific question by the noble Lady Baroness Ludford and the noble Lady Baroness Falkner about the effect of clause 191 on the Abortion Act in terms of how it deals with offences.

The legal position is that the Abortion Act is unaffected by clause 191. What clause 191 does is to disapply the offences created by sections 58 and 59 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929, but only for a woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. The offence is still apply to third parties, so I can reassure the noble Lady Baroness Falkner, that any man behaving in the way she described would still be potentially committing an offence.

So, my Lords, in order to avoid repeating myself later in this debate, I reiterate the government's neutral position in that I will not be commenting beyond matters of workability and practical effect. As a shorthand, I am going to refer to conduct which could come within sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act and the Infant Life Preservation Act as abortion offences. I do not intend to address all amendments. There are some, such as amendment 405, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness May, where we do not consider there to be significant workability concerns or particular operational implications or unintended consequences that your Lordships may wish to consider.

It is a simple policy decision to be made. So if I do not refer to any particular amendment, your Lordships may safely assume that that is because the government regards it as a policy decision for your Lordships House, without any operational or other matters to be considered. Finally, because this is a large group of amendments, I've tried to shorten my remarks to only the parts which I regard it as being essential that I bring to your Lordships attention. If there's anything that is unclear, I would encourage any of your Lordships to write to me so that I can provide a fuller explanation.

I begin with amendment 456. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Verdirame. It may be helpful for your Lordships to be aware of the usual circumstances in which certain offences require that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions more usually, or that of the Attorney General more rarely, is required before criminal proceedings can be instituted. Generally, the consent of the DPP will be appropriate, where either it is very likely that a defendant will reasonably contend that a prosecution for the offence would violate their convention rights, or where there is a high risk that the right to bring a private prosecution might be abused, and if so, the institution of proceedings will cause the defendant irreparable harm.

In general, prohibiting private prosecutions and ensuring that only the Crown Prosecution Service can prosecute is the check and balance used to mitigate these risks. If an offence involves national security or has an international element, then the consent of the Attorney General may be more appropriate. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord Lord Verdirame and by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, as to the statistics being relied upon, it's not clear to me whether actually the data requested is collected.

But I will make enquiries, and I'll write to the noble Lord. I turn to amendment 459, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Eaton. I can reassure the noble Lady that the government is clear that the law is also clear. Sex is not itself a lawful ground for termination of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967. And I can also reassure the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe on the same point. Accordingly, any third party, including registered medical practitioners, who terminates a pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the foetus alone, would therefore also be liable to prosecution under the relevant offences relating to abortion.

Turning to amendments 459 B and 502A in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Maclean. My Lords, it's worth noting that, as currently drafted, the deadline for the Secretary of State to lay the draft regulations and the deadline for Parliament to approve those regulations is the same in this amendment. Practically, then the effect might be that if the Secretary of State lays the regulations on the final day permitted, Parliament would not then have sufficient time to approve them before the deadline, and as a result, clause 191 would automatically cease to have effect, even though the Minister had complied with the requirement to lay the regulations.

It's unclear from the amendment, as drafted whether that's the noble Lady's intention or whether she intends to give sufficient time for both these processes to take place. Amendment 460, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Stroud, spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness Foster, who is no longer in her place, would mean that women would no longer be able to have a consultation over the phone or by other electronic means, before being able to self-administer medicine for early medical abortion at home, as is current practice.

Instead, women would be required to attend an in-person consultation first before being able to take pills at home. The House may wish to note that the overall effect of this new clause would be to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills, because of lack of resources for abortion providers to hold in-person consultations. It would. It could also reduce women's access to early medical abortion due to travel distances, if they live in remote areas, or if they have difficulties attending a clinic for different reasons.

For example, vulnerable women, women from more deprived backgrounds, or women subject to coercion. The government wishes your Lordships to be aware that, given that the majority of abortions take place via this method, this new clause is likely to have a significant operational impact on access to abortions. That said, this is of course, a matter of policy for Parliament. Amendment 461H in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Lawlor is similar to amendment 460 in that it seeks to introduce a requirement for an in-person consultation before medication to terminate a pregnancy may be lawfully prescribed, and in addition, amendment 461H would also require a scan or what is described as a clinically equivalent alternative to be conducted for all women to determine gestation before being able to take pills at home, whereas the current process is that an ultrasound scan is only provided in certain conditions where there's any uncertainty about gestation or where there is clinical need.

As drafted, it's unclear what is meant by other clinically equivalent means when determining the pregnancy's gestation. Your Lordships may also wish to consider the likelihood that amendment 461H would also result in additional costs being incurred because of either additional machines having to be bought and staff trained to provide an ultrasound for every woman seeking an early medical abortion, or the alternative would be to remove scanning capacity from provision for other needs. Operationally, the requirement to have a face to face appointment and scan may also introduce additional waiting times for abortion care, and this would have a particularly negative impact on those awaiting early medical abortion.

But it might also have an impact on abortions at a later stage because of loss of system capacity. This could have the and we presume that this would be unintended effect on more abortions taking place later on. As with amendment 460, the overall effect of this new clause would be to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills. Because of resource issues in relation to the requirement in every case to hold in-person consultations and offer scans. And then at four six, one A in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey seeks to apply the criminal standard of proof to medical assessments and decision making.

Your Lordships may wish to note that the operational effect of this additional burden of proof is that it is likely that women would no longer have a consultation over the telephone, or by other electronic means, before being prescribed medicine for early medical abortion at home, as is the current practice. Instead, women would need to attend an in-person consultation and have an ultrasound. So for similar reasons that those I've already given in relation to amendments 460 and 461H, amendment 461A is likely to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills, and thus result in more abortions being undertaken at later gestations.

Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan, seeks to create a new offence of intentionally encouraging or assisting a termination that's contrary to the Abortion Act 1967. We understand the noble Lady's amendment to be intended to work in the following way. A person would be guilty of committing such an offence. Whether or not a successful termination occurs, and the amendment would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the offence following consultation with appropriate stakeholders.

My Lords, clause 191 provides that a pregnant woman cannot commit an abortion offence in relation to her own pregnancy, meaning that such terminations would no longer be considered unlawful under the Abortion Act 1967. As a result, amendment 461 would only apply where a third party encourages or assists someone other than the pregnant woman. Your Lordships should be aware that this is already captured by existing, encouraging or assisting offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015 and therefore amendment 461 would create an overlapping offence.

Additionally, your Lordships may wish to note that in any event, third parties can also still be prosecuted at the moment under primary offences such as sections 58 or 59 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861 or the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Amendment 461 be tabled by the noble Lord Lord Bailey of Paddington. My Lords, safeguarding is an essential aspect of abortion care, and all abortion providers are already required to have effective arrangements in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults in compliance with the department's required standard operating procedures for the approval of independent sector places for termination of pregnancy in England.

Your Lordships may wish to consider that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has published National Safeguarding Guidance for under 18 s accessing Early Medical Abortion Services, which seeks to ensure that all abortion providers have robust safeguarding in place and we expect all providers to have due regard to safeguarding guidance. This is a policy decision, but your Lordships may also wish to consider the possible impact on under 16 s who wish to access an abortion, where the prospect of an investigation, especially if one undertaken by the police, could deter this vulnerable cohort of patients from seeking treatment from established services, creating either a risk of unwanted pregnancies or an increased general use of unregulated abortion services by under 16 s carried out under coercion.

There is a significant risk that this might have a disproportionate impact on those who are most vulnerable, including those experiencing violence and abuse. Turning to amendment 461K in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Lawlor, your Lordships may be aware that the requirements under section one of the Abortion Act are that two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that one of the grounds for abortion, set out in section one one are met. Under the noble Ladies Amendment, the good faith opinion of a registered medical practitioner would not in itself constitute a defence.

However, your Lordships may wish to note that this provision as drafted, seems to have no effect, since if a doctor acted in good faith, then the termination would be considered lawful under section one of the Abortion Act and no offence would have been committed. Your Lordships may also wish to note that the Amendment Amendment also overlaps with existing offences. For example, it's clear that the offence in the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 can be committed by corporate and unincorporated entities, including abortion providers, under the ordinary rules of corporate criminal liability.

In addition, it's also unclear from the amendment what might be considered reasonable steps for the independent provider to undertake to ensure that procedures are in place to confirm that the requirements of section one had been met. My Lords, I turn to the amendment in 46 one in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness Falkner. Your Lordships may wish to note that this offence would apply for woman or another person, when knowingly to receive the abortifacient drug by post, even if they did not ingest it or use it to induce an abortion.

In addition, abortifacient drugs are not defined in this amendment. One of the drugs prescribed in respect of an early of early medical abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 is misoprostol, but this drug is also used for non abortion related purposes, such as preventing stomach ulcers when taking non-steroidal steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It's also used in miscarriage management, postpartum haemorrhage, and induction of labour. So this amendment would mean that individuals who are lawfully prescribed this medication for a purpose other than abortion, who received it by post, would be committing a criminal offence may also be helpful, your Lord, for your Lordships to be aware that this amendment would make it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the lady for giving way, and I'll be very brief because I'm conscious of the time. So the other conscious of the time. So the other purposes for which this drug is purposes for which this drug is prescribed do not require any face to face examination. Am I correct in understanding that's what the noble Lady is saying?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lady is saying? What I'm saying is that this, this amendment as drafted, would this amendment as drafted, would criminalise those who receive those drugs by post if they're using it for some purpose other than abortion. It may also be helpful for your Lordships to be aware that this amendment, as drafted, would make it an offence for a business such as a pharmacy or an abortion clinic, to receive these drugs by post. Amendment 40 61G tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Maclean.

Your Lordships may wish to note that not all the information required under this amendment may be readily available. For example, it may not exist. It might require additional collection, or it may be held across different systems. It's unclear how there could be an accurate estimate of those who have illegally acquired abortifacients, or the data that this estimate would be based on producing. This annual report would therefore require the Ministry of Justice and other public bodies to take on additional responsibilities with associated costs.

Amendment 40 61F in the in the name of the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough government remains neutral on changing the criminal law related to abortion, but it is important to note that clause 191 does not decriminalise other offences such as manslaughter, murder or infanticide. These offences will continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, where the legal test is met. In addition, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are operationally independent of government and it would therefore not be appropriate for a Secretary of State to issue guidance.

Similarly, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council are also responsible for guidance on investigations for policing. I turn finally now to amendment 40 61J tabled by my noble friend Baroness Thornton. It's important to note that a pardon does not quash a conviction or a caution. What it does is remove the legal consequences that would otherwise attach to it. As with any pardon or expungement scheme, consideration would need to be given as to how such a scheme would operate in practice, for example, how those individuals would be identified.

There is no single single centrally held record of all cases that may fall within scope of this amendment. So this has implications for how and when the duty to direct deletion would be triggered. In addition, given the breadth of the amendment which extends to any record of an arrest or an investigation, the scale of the records potentially in scope is uncertain. Also, because the amendment is not time limited, it would thus apply to dead women as well. Taken together, these factors may mean that implementing such a duty as currently drafted would carry substantial operational and resource implications for policing.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service and those responsible for maintaining national databases. Scale of the work required cannot be reliably estimated at this stage, but it could be considerable.
22:06
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
Here. >> Here. >> My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who spoke today. I Lords who spoke today. I particularly welcome and and support the speeches of noble Baroness Monckton or Leon Foster of Aghadrumsee. The Lord altered the Right Reverend Bishop of Lincoln, and so many others who spoke so eloquently and passionately. My Lords, it has been a very useful debate, which also highlighted the little scrutiny clause 191 have has received, and how significant its potential effects could be, both legally, socially and morally.

At times, the debate revealed that we were speaking at cross-purposes. Balancing the rights of women and the rights of non rights of viable babies. Balancing the rights of vulnerable women versus those who abort for personal or blunt selfish reasons. We all heard of women who have aborted their child because they were afraid that a pregnancy would ruin their figure. The noble and learned Baroness Butler-sloss hit the nail on the head. And, if I may paraphrase badly, it goes something like clause 191 risks decriminalising abortions undertaken for personal reasons, while failing to guarantee the protection of women who have been victim of abuse or coercion.

This is an issue of such importance that I feel it merits much further consideration. And as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel highlighted that ultimately it does not and should not be part of this bill. I personally remain concerned that clause 191 could have tragic, unintended consequences for both women and babies able to survive outside the womb. I do not see this as a right to abort, but rather as how we as legislators can better protect the vulnerable, vulnerable women and the unborn child.

And this is why I continue to support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton amendment in proposing that this clause should not stand part of this bill. But for now, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 456. Ready. Debated, not moved. Amendment 456A has been moved. Amendment 456A has been withdrawn. Amendment 456B already debated, not moved. Amendment 456C debated, not moved. Amendment 456C already debated, not moved. Amendment 457 Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
22:09
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I know the hour is >> My Lords, I know the hour is late and it might be as well just to record for posterity that a to record for posterity that a number of us were prevailed upon to regroup our groups amendments to keep the number of groups at three instead of four, and the quid pro quo, as far as I understood, from the usual channels, was that we would be allowed a decent amount of time to transact the business in terms of.

And the noble Lady, the the government whip looks at me innocently with an innocent visage. But obviously we have had the reason the time is late. The hour is late is we have had obviously tributes to the Lord speaker. We've had dinner break business and we've had a UQ, so I'm sorry that your Lordships' House and the committee are having to sit later than I would have otherwise liked. My Lords, I won't leave you again. The points I made at Second Reading about new clause about clause 191, but I do believe it will exacerbate the dangers inherently present in appeals by post regime.

Suffice to say that the new clause will make it easier to get abortion pills. It will make it easier for abusive partners to coerce women into having an abortion, and it will lead to more abortions, including more late term abortions, thereby putting more women at risk of dangerous complications. My amendment 457 introduces a statutory review of clause 191 to provide a mechanism that is, in my opinion, the bare minimum gesture of seriousness this Parliament ought to make when undertaking such a profound change to the criminal law relating to the protection of human life.

My Lords, amendment 457 has three core elements. First, within 12 months of the clause coming into force, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of its operation and impact, followed by annual reviews thereafter. Second, there is a requirement that the reviews examine maternal complications, including maternal deaths, the health and safety of women having abortions, late self-induced abortion, connected coercion or abuse, and the application of the criminal law to third parties involved in abortions. Third, there is a power for the Secretary of State to repeal clause 191 if the review shows it to be causing harm.

The aim is specified for review are not arbitrary, but the categories where risk concentrates. They are the precise pressure points where this legislation is most likely to go wrong. Let me just outline a couple of these areas. It is vital we look at maternal complications. There is a serious discrepancy in the Department of Health's reporting on this. The DHSC latest figures establish sorry, published just last month, claim a complication rate of just 0.3% sorry per 1000 early medical abortions, equating to 71 abortions out of 236,000 in total.

That sounds very good. It allows the noble Lady Baroness Merron, the health Minister, to repeatedly claim that abortion pills are safe. I have to tell noble Lords that is incredibly misleading. The official DHSC figures do not include complications reported after being charged discharged from a clinic. In other words, they don't include cases where a woman has taken one or more abortion pills at home, then has to go to hospital with infections, haemorrhaging, or what's euphemistically called retained products of conception.

Those kind of early medical abortions make up 82% of all abortions for residents of England and Wales in 2023. When you take into account hospital episode statistics publicly available for the NHS, you find that an estimated 12,000 women were admitted to hospital in 2023 with complications after taking abortion pills. There is a world of difference between 71 and 12,000, but the government consistently refuses to report on the real picture, and I've asked a number of written parliamentary questions about upgrading upgrading the HSA for form, to no avail.

The noble Lady, the Minister confirmed to me in writing in November that, quote, the department has no plans to publish a separate annual report on abortion complications. I fear that with clause 101, the disparity between the official statistics and what's happening on the ground will only get worse. Modes of abortion provision have changed rapidly. Home use, pills, telemedical arrangements and so on all raise new questions. If clause 101 increases the risk that women undertake dangerous procedures without clinical oversight, or at least gestations, we must know then there is coercion and abuse, coercive partners, traffickers and other abusers sometimes pressure women into ending pregnancies.

We must know whether decriminalisation for the woman inadvertently empowers abusers. Amendment 457 requires that that is examined. My Lords, that brings me to the third feature of this amendment the power to repeal clause 191. If the evidence demonstrates harm. Without this mechanism, the review would be merely an academic exercise. The repeal mechanism is a safety valve. It does not mandate repeal. It makes repeal possible where the evidence demands it. This is entirely normal, especially in sensitive areas of law.

We have sunset clauses, review clauses, renewal clauses, all designed to ensure that legislation remains under scrutiny. Amendment 458 takes a different approach to the same problem. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annual reports concerning the number of babies born alive, following attempted abortions procured outside the current Abortion Act framework, and the number of women experienced medical complications, including maternal deaths. By concentrating solely on the abortions enabled by clause 191, the amendment provides Parliament with vital information about the consequences of this change.

Let me now turn to the other part of the amendment concerning babies born alive after attempted abortions. My Lords, it is not easy to speak about babies being born alive after attempted abortion. It is a subject that arouses sorrow, discomfort and in some cases, disbelief. But however rare such events may be, they do happen. They are documented in medical literature and coroners reports, in the accounts of midwives and neonatal nurses, whose courage we should commend. And what becomes of such a child? Does he or she receive comfort or resuscitation, or are they left without medical intervention? We are entitled to know.

Finally, I want to briefly address amendment 40 61C in my name. The purpose of this amendment is simple, modest, and I would argue, indispensable to ensure that Parliament receives annual, detailed, transparent statistics on the realities of abortion in our country. Statistics specifically concerning the sex of the foetus were determinable, the ethnicity of the mother, and any medical complications arising from the procedure. It equips Parliament with information necessary to safeguard women and understand disparities. Amendment 46 one does not change the law on abortion.

What it does is to ask the government to tell Parliament the truth about what is happening. Until fairly recently, the government did at least provide annual reports on sex ratios at birth. In the United Kingdom, it was most recently published in October 2023, covering the 2017 to 21 period. I'm not sure why the annual publication seems to have stopped, and I invite the Minister specifically to tell us that October 2023 report, while claiming that there was no evidence of a general problem, did say and I quote, this analysis finds evidence of a statistically significant imbalance in the ratio of males to females at birth for children of Indian ethnicity after two or more previous births in England and Wales for the period 2017 to 2021.

This may indicate that sex selective abortions, as alluded to earlier by my noble friend Baroness Eaton, are taking place. If so, it is estimated that around 400 sex selective abortions may have taken place. As we heard earlier, I don't know how many other noble Lords were aware of this publication. The suggestion that 400 girls may have been killed in the womb simply because they were girls is clearly appalling. This amendment is about providing more data. It does not impose new clinical burdens.

It simply ensures that when data is already present, it is not deliberately discarded. My Lords, the case for a disaggregated health data by ethnicity is not controversial. Indeed, it is widely accepted as best practice across all domains of public health. We know from decades of research that health outcomes vary significantly between ethnic groups. Ethnicity is a routine variable in almost all modern and modern health data sets. Precisely because of this, material mortality, maternal mortality is higher among women of Black and Asian backgrounds.

For example, preterm birth rates and incidence of certain conditions also reflect pronounced disparities. My Lords, access to antenatal care, cultural pressures, and socio economic factors all play a part. My Lords, we must have information so that we can learn and adjust course if data demands it. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Amendment proposed clause 191,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 223. Line 13 at end. Insert the words on the Marshalled List. My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord. Jackson has been round this circuit before, and I think it was a private member's bill proposed by one of his noble friends about the one of his noble friends about the collecting of statistics. And and he shows that the noble Lord hasn't actually doesn't seem to have checked what statistics are already collected before. He has decided that these things need to be done. So I just would like thought it
22:20
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
might be useful for the House to know that the annual abortion statistics already include the statistics already include the ethnicity of the woman. Medical complications as part of treatment, complications as part of treatment, and the noble Lord will also be aware that it's incredibly rare that the sex of the foetus is known that the sex of the foetus is known because the vast majority of abortions are carried out before abortions are carried out before ten, or happen before 10 or 12 weeks, so it's simply not known or collectable.

Complications from abortion care are extremely rare and are already reported. Abortion care providers are regulated and scrutinised through long established accountability mechanisms, including published safeguarding reports and Care Quality Commission inspections. And these are on the public record. So I'm not quite sure where the noble Lord has decided that things are not. Doctors are already legally required to provide information about abortions to the Chief Medical Officer, including gestation complications and grounds for an abortion. So it seems to me that what the noble Lord is doing is, in fact, bringing forward amendments which will cause huge bureaucracy and may risk leaving medical professions permanently unsure of the status of abortion law.

And I'm sure that we would wish to avoid that happening, but I'd be very interested to hear from my noble friend, the Minister, what the government have to say about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the implications of all these amendments would have. Lord Moraes to support the amendment. Standing in the name of amendment. Standing in the name of Lord Jackson. We live in what sometimes would concern a lot of us, sometimes described as a post-truth world in which facts are often passed off as either opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase fake news. Sometimes opinions are passed
22:22
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
news. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that doesn't just simply come from conspiracy theorists on the internet, but comes sometimes, sadly, from a times world leaders on that basis. So I think given that context, it is important that when this House resolves in any legislation that it should be on the basis both when it's passing the legislation and looking into the future, that it does so on the basis of evidence of truth and of facts.

And I think that's particularly true when it comes to the issue of abortion. We have seen it is an issue, irrespective of your views upon it, which is deeply sensitive and which raw emotions are quite often provoked. And to some extent, we've seen that earlier today when at times I think the atmosphere of the house got a little bit tense at times because people have genuine conflicting views on this. And therefore, the more that we can actually try and base this on an evidential basis, I think the better.

It is particularly true of the proposed changes that are being made in clause 191 for two main reasons. First of all, while there has been some mention about this as being something which has been in the aether for quite a number of years. The specifics of of of this piece of legislation was by way of a backbench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate upon it. Now, it wasn't part of either a government programme or a manifesto commitment, and any backbench member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment that is the normal procedure.

But the downside of that will mean, of course, that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal. And secondly, despite what has been said, I think there are some concerns about the quality of data that we have on a range of issues. Now, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed to me that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You know, you can make the argument either that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary.

Or alternatively, you make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Now, you can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. And it does strike me that when we are taking decisions around this, it is important to get the data there. And it's been highlighted, I think. I think it was mentioned by a private member's bill at Lord Moylan was proposing that there are concerns over the quality at times of the level of data.

And we have heard, perhaps not unsurprisingly, it's not a unique case to this particular data, be it different people in different sides of this argument quoting sometimes contradictory data as to where we are. So it it strikes me that there are one of two solutions to this, to these particular problems, neither of which I think are mutually exclusive, but Lord Hanson think it is. Next group of amendments is proposing, apart from everything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period, and then these group of amendments look towards the the idea of producing data and report and gathering evidence so that there can be a level of review of the procedures and how things work out.

And it highlights the range of issues which in the previous debate formed a number of the concerns. Issues around the level of coercion, issues around the medical complications that arise as a result of changes. Issues around whether this leads to a driver on sex selection issues. As mentioned, I think in relation to the incidence of of a late abortion, where actually the the there's a birth which then leads to a live birth on that basis. And this range of things highlight a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.

Now, I appreciate and we had this debate today, that proponents, particularly of clause 191, will say that the concerns that have been raised, while I'm sure they will accept they are genuine in their views, are misplaced or perhaps exaggerated on that on that basis, and that we have nothing to fear from 1991 and various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been been quoted. I think it's important, therefore, that we test that out, and I think these amendments will gather that data and allow us to assess that.

And if we are dealing with false fears, then I think for the proponents, particularly of clause 191, this will actually strengthen their argument in a year or two years time whenever these things are being reviewed. But if the fears are genuine and are realised, then I think it is also important, as Lord Jackson says, that if we are gathering evidence, this is not some sort of desk top exercise where we can simply look at figures, but if we're gathering evidence, then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity.

If they do show that there is increased dangers, for instance, to women or indeed concerns over any other categories, that we can then take a level of corrective action that seems to be a very sensible course of action. So I think that I don't think there is anything anybody should have to fear from these amendments. And so I would commend them to the House.
22:28
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Lords listen to Lord Weir of Ballyholme and what he says sounds eminently sensible. But the problem is this the noble Baroness Thornton has set out the level of detail that is already gathered. He, among he and other members of your Lordships' House, have all day gone on about about the issue of telemedicine and coercion. And yet when the when the the Royal Colleges set up the evaluation of telemedicine, when it came in during Covid, they took particular care to examine issues like that, and they came up with the data that showed that telemedicine was safe.

Actually, what it found was not only discovered women who were being coerced, it discovered women who were being trafficked. And yet members of the your Lordships' House still trot out the same arguments time and time again. So I'm afraid I listened to Lord Weir of Ballyholme and I rather left with the Lord Jackson. And I think it doesn't matter what data we collect, they're still going to make the same arguments over and over again. Now, my noble friend Baroness Brinton cannot be here this evening, but she particularly wanted to to say this.

The detail, the detail of these amendments is designed to confuse and delay the safe and effective legal rules of abortion. They also take abortion out of the clinical sphere, trying to analyse it and create an environment so hostile it will deter women and equally important clinicians and medical staff as the rules become more and more complex, and are also held at the whim of the Secretary of State to amend details or to report at various times. It's a worrying idea, using secondary legislation to make everything more complex, because that gives Ministers the powers to change things and it causes confusion and distress.

Your Lordships will know that after the overturning of Roe versus Wade in the USA, abortion became a states matter, a very key objective of the Anti-abortionists. And that meant that all the gathering of data became a matter not just for individual states, but individual counties within states and in one county in West Virginia, a prosecutor decided that abortion was now illegal. Women had to provide evidence of a miscarriage, i.e. physical foetal remains, no matter at what stage that miscarriage happened.

Now there was some kind of there was. Fortunately, there were other people who saw that for the inhumanity. It was. But that's what he said he wanted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do. The outrage. Listen to what has been said in the release. Initially, I wasn't the release. Initially, I wasn't quite clear whether there was an intervention, but I appreciate it is actually a speech. I think comparisons with America are comparisons with America are somewhat facile because if they're gathering data, it will be on a a gathering data, it will be on a a NHS wide basis. In that regard, the idea of anybody else you would have in the states where an individual in the states where an individual county will take a particular view, impose different decisions, require different things, is not something which could happen in this country.

So, you know, by all means, I think criticise the amendments, take them apart, but don't make I think what is a level of false comparisons based upon a very different federal system that they have in the United States to what happens here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is a false comparison, because what we're saying is that instead of having, having having a system which is democratically decided openly and in Parliament, we're going to leave it to we're going to leave it to regulation and we're going to leave it to officials. And I think that's wrong. So and the other thing is, I wrong. So and the other thing is, I would she Baroness Brinton also wanted to say amendment 457. Section three A. Imagine a woman Section three A.

Imagine a woman who has, in the words of the amendment, acting in relation to their own pregnancy, having to identify and report medical complications. What does that mean? What does that mean? I don't think that that is intended to make it any easier for a woman in need to access the care that she needs. I think it's intended to frustrate, and therefore I hope that these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments will not be passed. I fail to understand the logic of both Baroness Thornton and the of both Baroness Thornton and the noble Lady Baroness Barker, setting their face against collecting more their face against collecting more data. I mean, the fact is, we're not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and the certain as to the veracity and the accuracy of any of this data. To give you an example, my Lords, the what? No, I haven't finished yet.

The Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued, quote, making abortion safe guidelines to to providers for the safe use of medical for medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of foeticide 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's more than twice the highest rate reported above by the order.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm ever so sorry, but an intervention, according to the companion, should be short and brief and specific to a point. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brief and specific to a point. So the noble Lord could actually make his point. I'd be grateful. Standing order 29 does not apply,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I'm entitled to speak more than once in it. I'm Earl Attlee, but this is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention on a. Noble Lady. I haven't finished yet. Standing order 29 does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yet. Standing order 29 does not apply in respect of the ability for a member individually. Sit down, my Lord. Thank you very much. The hour is late and I appreciate this has been a very, very difficult debate. What I'm saying is, my Lords, and that the rules on intervention are clearly no rules. Absolutely right. He can speak repeatedly, but we. But you asked before noble Lords, before noble Baroness sat down. We believed this to be an intervention, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government Chief Whip is very flexible when it comes to that side of the chamber. Segwaying between speeches and interventions where she doesn't intervene. It's only on this side that she intervenes to throw off this side the the points made which are not in line with what the standing orders and the companion says, which is that a move an amendment and others are entitled to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and others are entitled to speak more than once. A couple of things, my Lord. You just promoted me. I thank you for the promotion, but we have a very, very good government Chief Whip who I am very privileged to serve under. Noble Lord would appreciate following what I what I've been trying to do all the way through. My Lords, when I have been whipping, is to try and manage this in such a way that everybody has been able to hear.

And I hope, regardless of position. I don't think anyone knows my personal views. But with regards to this, Baroness Barker is still on the Annunciator because the noble Lord indicated that before the Baroness Anderson he wanted a clarification on a point. That's why I was speaking. That's what I was suggesting. We all believed it to be an intervention, my Lord. If it's not, then we can move on and we will revert back to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you for your second speech. My Lords, I think my case has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The thing about four six, one C and I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton has said, is quite a lot is collected. Clearly they were late this year and there would be no point in particularly doing a job on the basis of that. But I think what my noble friend refers to and I, I do again understand that not every
22:36
22:37
22:38
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to reporting requirements and monitoring of requirements and monitoring of abortion services. It's important that I say again that the government is neutral in relation government is neutral in relation to this. My remarks are limited to workability or operational concerns or possible unintended consequences. I am not going to speak to all the amendments, only where there are particular issues that are. Our view is that should be brought to the attention of the Committee. Amendment 457, tabled by the noble noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough as currently drafted.

Parts of the information required are broad and the exact meaning is not always clear. Raising practical workability issues. Not all the information required may be readily available, and producing an annual report would require the Department of Health and Social Care to take on additional reporting responsibilities with associated costs. Amendment 458, also in the name of Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report detailing complications from abortions procured contrary to the Abortion Act.

My Lords, determining whether specific cases fall within the report's remit would require investigations to determine whether they could be considered to be contrary to the Abortion Act, and this could necessitate involvement from medical professionals or other public bodies to review individual circumstances. Furthermore, as I have just said in relation to amendment 457, as currently drafted, parts of the information required are broad. The exact meaning is unclear. Raising questions about practical workability. Not all the information required may be readily available. For example, it may not exist, it may require additional collection or be held across different systems, including the abortion notification system held by DHSC and patient records within the NHS.

The Lordships may also wish to note that producing this annual report would require additional responsibilities, with significant associated costs to the Department of Health and Social Care and other public bodies. Amendment 461C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report disclosing data collected as required under section two of the Abortion Act. I can confirm what has been said by my noble friend Baroness Thornton, the Department for Health and Social Care, as abortion notification system already collects data on the self-reported ethnicity of the woman where known and complications that occur up until the time of discharge for all abortions.

This data is published in the annual Abortion Statistics publication for England and Wales. However, as the Noble as My Noble Friend, Baroness Thornton also commented, the abortion notification system does not currently collect information on the sex of the foetus, as most abortions are performed at an early gestation when the sex of the foetus will not usually be known. Two further matters the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is correct. There has been a delay in the publication of the abortion statistics, but not for policy reasons.

These are for operational issues, which include moving to a new data processing system, and we will announce dates for the publication of the 2024 data in due course. Finally, turning to the question of sex ratios at birth raised by the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, the Department for Health and Social Care remains committed to publishing these statistics and the publication dates for sex ratios at birth in the United Kingdom from 2018 to 2022 and from 2019 to 2023, will be announced in due course.
22:41
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my Lords for >> My Lords, I thank my Lords for their contributions to the debate, including the noble Lady, Baroness including the noble Lady, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Barker in particular, and my noble friend and at the Government whip, who's always very strict in the House, and perhaps for the right reason. I think it's been a good, lively debate. The question I would ask is, if I may, I'd press the Minister on, and perhaps if she'd be so good as to write to me on this is I've never had a satisfactory answer about the point I made earlier about the use of the HSA for form, and why complications arising from terminations when a patient a woman, has left the clinical setting is not collected because I yes it's not.

It may not be hundreds of thousands, but it is a it's a significant cost in terms of health outcomes, trauma for that woman and for the NHS and private providers. So I think we still need to know why that isn't captured because it's it doesn't provide the whole picture, but nevertheless with the proviso that we will return to this issue of data collection and empirical data that informs policy decisions. I seek the leave of the House to withdraw my three amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure? The amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 458 already debated, not moved. Amendment 459 already debated, not moved. Amendment 459A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debated, not moved. Amendment 459A Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I promise, my Lords, I did not allocate the amendments in these groups, so I'm sorry if you've had enough of me. In fact, I've had enough of me today. But but I think we're on the home stretch, my Lords. It will be obvious. Amendment 459 is a probing amendment, but it raises a very important point. It makes absolutely clear just what clause 191 is going to permit. I believe it is beyond the bounds of what any responsible legislature should accept.

As we all know, at 39 weeks gestation, a pregnancy has reached full term. At this stage, one is no longer speaking of premature viability, uncertain outcomes, or developmental limitations. One is speaking, as clinicians will confirm, of a baby about to be delivered. Do we really believe that the criminal law should be entirely silent about the responsibility of the mother at that point? Should Parliament not insist upon a basic threshold of protection for the viable child, who is quite literally on the threshold of birth? My Lords, this amendment asks the House to confront a question that is both profoundly simple and serious.

Is there any point, any point at all, at which Parliament believes criminal liability might attach to actions taken by a pregnant woman, with the intention of ending the life of a child who is fully viable and ready to be born. I believe that answer to be no, and that it would contravene the moral intuition of the British people and the practice of most civilised nations. Civilisation is, in part the drawing of lines. We draw lines to uphold justice, to protect the vulnerable, to ensure that rights are not trampled by power.

We draw these lines to separate what society can condone from what it cannot. For supporters of decriminalisation, the rationale offered is that the criminal law is a blunt instrument, that the prosecution of women is distressing and counter-productive. But even if one accepts that rationale, it does not follow that the law should operate without limit, without boundary and without any moral horizon. Even if this House is prepared to draw the line of criminal liability differently from the 1967 act, surely it cannot be said that we should eliminate that line altogether.

A full term child is not a theoretical entity. It is not an abstract concept. It is not a clump of cells. It is a living, viable human being who, if delivered mere hours later, would be held in a mother's arms, placed in a cot, given a name, registered as a citizen, and received into the world with joy. At 39 weeks, a child is not merely viable. She or he is fully developed. Her lungs can breathe air. Her brain has undergone a crucial maturation.

She can experience pain in every maternity ward. Thousands of babies at 39 weeks are being delivered safely. Their lives are celebrated. Their cries echo through the corridors. At such a stage of gestation, surely the laws interest cannot be solely in the the choices of the woman. It must acknowledge that the parallel interest is in the life of a viable child. Parliament routinely balances competing interests in other contexts. There comes a point where even the most ardent supporter of abortion must recognise the interests of an unborn child, who is, in every practical sense, a child awaiting delivery.

And that must matter as well. And I speak, my Lords, not as a Catholic and someone who does support abortion. As it stands, clause one, line one crosses the line that should never be crossed and entirely disregards the life of a full term child. My Lords, amendment 56 two would make the commencement of clause 191 conditional upon the publication of a report assessing the anticipated impact of the change. The report would consider the impact on the safety and welfare of women, the risk of coerced and non-consensual abortion, late term or self-induced abortions outside of a clinical setting, the recording and monitoring of complications in such cases, and standards of clinical oversight.

Amendment five six would require that before clause 191 is brought into force, the government conducts a 12 week public consultation and publishes an analysis of the responses. These are modest amendments. They simply insist that before a change of this magnitude is implemented, the government gives full consideration to its likely impact and to wider public opinion. Because this certainly didn't happen during the measly 46 minute. Backbenchers got to respond to the amendment. In the other place, I give way to the noble Lord.

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way, and I gather you want.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want. Amendment proposed clause 191, page 223. Line 13 at end, insert the words on the Marshalled List. amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. intervention. An intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm taking an intervention. No. No, no, that's fine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's fine. I was more than happy to take an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was more than happy to take an amendment for the newly minted Baron Lord Doyle. But anyway, on Baron Lord Doyle. But anyway, on the basis that wiser and better heads have prevailed, I will heads have prevailed, I will continue my words briefly. The current criminal framework provides current criminal framework provides an important safeguard for women, particularly those under the age of 16 and those who are vulnerable or at risk of coercion in what is already a highly permissive system.

During the debate on the Other place, the sponsor of the amendment, the hon. Member for Gower, claimed that the legislative changes needed to, quote, protect the women, unquote, but removing the legal deterrent to late term abortions will only increase harm to women. It will mean a return to the days of backstreet abortions, because a desperate woman will know she can end her pregnancy after 24 weeks without facing any police investigation for it. But she will be unable to obtain the abortion legally, and so she will be driven towards illegal and unsafe providers.

A report in advance of the provisions coming into force might highlight all this, and give us all a chance to think again, if indeed we are willing to think. There is a fanaticism around support for abortion, which makes many people unwilling to consider the evidence. For example, some of the academic literature provides insight into the often overlooked psychological impact of abortion, which was mentioned earlier. My Lords, the results revealed of a number of of studies, including a study of 1.2 million pregnancies in Quebec hospitals that found that women were followed over a 17 year period.

The results revealed that women who had an abortion were much more likely to be hospitalised for mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, as well as for substance abuse and suicidal ideation. This risk was higher among women who were under the age of 25 at the time of their abortion, and among those with a history of mental health difficulties. Another study found that for many women, having abortion is associated with lasting negative emotions such as feelings of guilt, regret, shame, and self unforgiveness.

These feelings were strongest among women who reported being coerced, and I'm constantly amazed at how little many feminists have to say about coerced abortion. The introduction of telemedicine abortion has undoubtedly made it much more difficult for coercion to be detected. A 2022 survey commissioned by BBC radio four found that 15% of women have experienced pressure to have an abortion. This points to a significant cohort of women who are not exercising choice, but are manipulated into terminating the life of their unborn baby.

I give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the noble Lady. I'm not sure. Order, order if it helps the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order if it helps the committee, if it helps the committee, an intervention cannot be made when someone is moving the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be made when someone is moving the amendment and the noble Lord is moving his amendment. I'm very grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for that guidance and apologies for accepting what would have been a sparkling intervention, I'm sure, sparkling intervention, I'm sure, from the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. My Lords, there were huge gaps in our understanding, particularly in relation to complications, and I won't repeat the points I made in relation to my earlier amendments. Suffice to say, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive and robust system of data collection. My noble friend Lord Moynihan Boylan's bill, which is currently awaiting its report, seeks to address this deficiency by ensuring that complications are more accurately reported.

It would be remiss to proceed with clause one and one without first seeking to understand the consequences for the recording and monitoring of abortion outside of a clinical setting, particularly when we know that the present framework fails to capture the true scale of complications. Finally, my Lords, it is deeply regrettable that we are being asked to approve the most far reaching change to abortion law since 1967, without the public having first been consulted. A change of such moral, legal and societal consequence warrants proper consultation.

Yet the public has been afforded no such opportunity, my Lords. Whichever side of the debate 1st May be on, we can surely agree that this greed, this is a matter, should not be pursued without proper consultation and consideration on its likely impact. I therefore, urge noble Lords to support my amendment, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I formally move these amendments. My Lords, I can now say with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I can now say with certainty that amendment proposed clause 191, page 223. Line 13. At end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. I rise to support my noble friend on particularly amendment friend on particularly amendment 562. And it comes back to. I'm thinking of his new clause 13, and it's in particular about E. So I
22:54
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
didn't hear from the Minister earlier about, in effect, what are earlier about, in effect, what are they going to do once clause 191 goes ahead assuming it, it does. And we'll decide at Report stage whether that's going to happen or not. I appreciate I don't think the Minister will answer that today either. But actually this amendment either. But actually this amendment five, six, two would require the government to give some proper consideration of how this is going to work in practice before it's actually enacted.

And for that reason, I think it's a sensible way to get a bit of breathing space to open up what it is we're kind of walking into. And for those where potential crimes are committed, and given that one person in the arrangement is being decriminalised, what's going to happen to the people who have facilitated what could be a crime? But that's why I support amendment 562 in at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage. As far as it would seem, from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as it would seem, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that basically this suite of amendment basically this suite of amendment drives a coach and horses through abortion rights as a whole, as well abortion rights as a whole, as well as, of course, completely opposing as, of course, completely opposing this clause. That's under discussion. So I think, for example, virtually zero abortions occur at 39 weeks gestation. And taking abortion pills at this stage of gestation would actually simply induce labour.

So passing this amendment would mean continuing criminal offences for abortion for vulnerable women. The same applies to the other suite delays and reversals. Vulnerable women continuing to face life changing traumatic investigations. And basically I think five, three, six is a wrecking amendment. I think to all the other amendments to delay the implementation of the change in law. So whilst the noble Lord might say that he is.
22:56
22:56
Lord Doyle Portrait Lord Doyle (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I feel I should make >> My Lords, I feel I should make the point that I jumped to my feet to to make earlier. And I was it to to make earlier. And I was it was a comment that the noble Lord made about the amount of time that this issue had been debated in the other place, and I believe the noble Lord was a member of the other place previously. But I you know, I haven't had that privilege. But I do think we should show colleagues there a little bit more respect in the idea that the amount of time that they spent debating this issue should not be seen as an indication of whether they actually supported or not.

I'm not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that if they had debated it for 46 hours or 46 days, that somehow the 379 MPs who voted for this clause wouldn't have done so, or that they somehow weren't aware

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of what they were voting for in the first place. Well. As the as the noble Lord has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the as the noble Lord has specifically challenged me on that issue, the point that was raised in earlier groups was that there was an impact. There is an impact assessment in government bills. There is an equality impact assessment in government bills. There is pre-legislative scrutiny in government bills. There is in government bills. There is significant public consultation as a result of the Cabinet Office as as the noble Lord knows very well guidelines as to public consultation. None of that happened on this occasion and therefore I think, yes, let's pay due regard to the deliberations and the scrutiny and oversight of the Commons.

If there is a proper due process in the way that a bill evolves and is debated and tested and challenged, that has not been the case on this occasion. And it's very similar to the way appeals by post was, you know, the original amendment, the original wording of the pills by post amendment was disorderly in the Commons and had to be rewritten by the Special Advisers and Department for health before it was introduced in the House of Lords. That was tacked on to a health and social care bill.

In the same way, this has been tacked on to a mainstream crime and policing bill. So with all due respect to the noble Lord, I don't think his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

analysis stands up to scrutiny. I will just very briefly intervene, as I was going to intervene, as I was going to intervene until I was corrected. I've learned something. It's always good to learn new things in your good to learn new things in your Lordships' House, but the noble Lords cited a number of statistics suggesting that abortion, that was something that did emotional damage to women or that they regretted
22:59
23:00
23:01
23:01
23:01
23:02
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page