Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point, and I very much sympathise with those who have been bereaved and who face such an investigation. However, there is a profound difference in what we are considering here, which is an investigation of a woman who has just lost the child she is carrying and who is being investigated with a view to the real possibility of a criminal prosecution of her. We have to recognise that a woman in those circumstances is particularly vulnerable and sensitive. 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.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I wonder if what the noble Lord describes, with which I have a great deal of sympathy—I say this as a signatory to Amendment 456—would be ameliorated in terms of the distress of the investigation if the Attorney-General were to adopt guidance, and that guidance set out strict criteria that would at least remove or ameliorate the risk of the distress these investigations can cause. The Attorney-General can define very narrowly the circumstances in which the police would be entitled to do that, can he not?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

He can, but as I have already said, the difficulty is that, however sympathetic the guidance, the circumstances of the woman concerned have to be investigated in order to identify whether her case falls within those criteria. Therefore, the damage he has done to the woman who has recently lost the child is caused, however sensitive the investigation and whatever the criteria. That is the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I would just be grateful, and I will be brief, to get a clarification—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Before the Government Whip sits down, could he please remind the Committee that interventions have to be brief and cannot go on into speeches? Can he also remind the Committee that those who have put their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

First, there are no points of order in our self-regulating House. Secondly, the noble Baroness makes the point about interventions very ably. Thirdly, as I said, there is time for everyone in Committee to both move their amendments and speak to other amendments, so I suggest we just take it in a reasonable order. I will leave it to the Committee to decide who speaks next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I do grasp that point, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for assisting me. In a broader sense, can it be relied on that Clause 191 would not have a wash effect over the Abortion Act 1967, which has been subjected to various attempts at amendment but has largely held the course since 1967? I understand all the very good reasons for it, but how we can be sure that this decriminalisation of the woman concerned would not ultimately lead to an amendment of the Abortion Act 1967.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Verdirame has explained, my noble friend Lady Wolf cannot be here today, so I will pick up some of her points in this intervention as she is not here to make them herself. If we want to change the law, many say that Clause 191 will improve the situation for women’s bodily autonomy. I am all for that, but only after a considered debate, which we had in the past when we amended the Abortion Act 1967 to bring it into conformity with changing medical science and social attitudes. It is not as though we are stuck in aspic. This Bill is not the place to do so, as the breadth of amendments that this clause has attracted demonstrates.

I will concentrate mainly on the Covid-era regulations which permitted the obtaining of pills by post at any point of gestation, whereas previously, later stages required face-to-face consultation between the pregnant woman and doctors under the Abortion Act. This may have been necessary during lockdown, and it is a failure on the part of the then Government not to have contemplated a review after lockdown ended. As things stand, 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 noble Lords. It will also open the door to coerce women to seek late-term abortions against their own wishes. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is not in her seat, but I think that is the point that she was trying to get to in her intervention.

If there is no sanction in law, what reason can one give a controlling partner who insists that it is perfectly permissible in law? Decriminalisation suggests 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 in the other place sought.

My noble friend Lady Wolf made the point that while home-based abortions have become common, they normally use two drugs in the form of pills: mifepristone, 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 the same as an early miscarriage, in effect, and in England and Wales it is allowable for abortions up to 10 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, whatever her reasons for wishing to terminate the pregnancy, may not appreciate the complications. Pills by post do not require further safeguards than those put into place by the 1967 Act other than a phone or virtual call, which is the least satisfactory method of ascertaining stress, emotional distress or, indeed, coercive pressure.

I want to share with the Committee some examples of emotional pressure. Noble Lords may be aware of the case of Stuart Worby in December 2024. I am grateful to the prosecuting counsel, Edmund Vickers KC of Red Lion 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 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 Mr Worby received the drugs, he first added mifepristone to food and drink. The next day he told the victim that he wanted 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 explained that the offence of administering poison to bring about a miscarriage was made more serious by Mr Worby’s prolonged research and planning over many weeks, 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.

This sorry tale attempts to demonstrate that it is not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the woman who may wish to terminate her pregnancy or the unborn child. There is a further factor here: the partner, the husband or other members of the family who may seek coercion.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That is a shocking story, but nothing in Clause 191 would affect the criminal liability of the man who behaved in such a disgraceful manner.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I find that very interesting. I am sure it will be a welcome debate among lawyers. I will look into that and take it into consideration when I come back with a renewed amendment on Report.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry, but this is simply not a controversial issue. Clause 191 says that

“no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”.

It simply does not affect the criminal liability of anyone else.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, we are coming back to the terminally ill debate that we had on Friday. Women may well be—although not in this particular case—coerced by partners to take pills when they would not otherwise have wished to do so. Perhaps noble Lords who have tabled amendments to do with face-to-face consultations have that in their minds, as a face-to-face consultation would require deeper insights on the part of medical professionals—pills by post do not.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I would like to proceed a little further and then I will give way to the noble Baroness.

If we wish to change abortion law, we are perfectly entitled to do so as a society, but this clause raises significant questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, even though—I accept this—the Government said on Second Reading that they remain neutral on the clause and that they anticipated a free vote. As the clause seeks to repeal Sections 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 Worby’s and others? This was a poisoning and an attempt to procure a miscarriage without the woman’s consent—and it happened without repealing those offences.

As the Government have not 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? Will the Government commit to carrying out an overall review of the extent of the problem with police investigations of these women and to opening discussions with the relevant authorities to ascertain how better to focus police interventions? That is the objective of our Amendment 456.

On all sides of the Committee, we recognise the distress caused to women by unfounded police intrusiveness. 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. On the other, we have obligations to the rights of the unborn child.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I will say one more sentence before I sit down, and I will be happy for both noble Baronesses to intervene then.

We have obligations to the rights of the unborn child, as that is what very late-term abortions are about in terms of viability. These things engage our ethics and responsibilities in law. I suggest that the Minister seeks to engage with those of us tabling amendments to guide us on how we in this Committee can do both responsibly.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

If you are being coerced into ending a pregnancy outside the law, and if you report that to the police, you yourself will be investigated for a criminal offence. That would be the case even though it is clear—as we know from that court case—that the man is the person who has coerced you into doing that. Can the noble Baroness say how this can be right? If a woman goes to the police in those circumstances—why would she?—she would be investigated for a criminal offence. That is what the law says now.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

In the Worby case, the woman discovered what had happened to her, went to the police and was not investigated.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, please excuse my enthusiasm but the Committee can see that, every time I blinked, somebody else jumped in.

I will speak in support of my Amendment 461B, which is focused on protecting underage girls. Before I do that, I will pose a few questions to the Minister on the back of the debate we have had today. First, an assertion has been made that this is happening all over the place and that many women are being prosecuted. Can the Minister give us access to the figures that she is working on to answer that question?

Secondly, is there any proof that the police are targeting women? That assertion has been made a number of times.

Also, what work are the Government doing to improve the nature of police investigations? The right reverend Prelate made that point very well. Surely, any woman in this situation should be treated as a victim until there is some very strong evidence that she is anything but a victim. What are we doing to help the police perform their duties better?

I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. The notion that you can represent only people that you are of is one that we should fight very hard. I come from a very poor community and have spent my life representing people who have no relation to the way I look, where I come from and who I am. That is something we should fight very hard. I am a man and a father of two. When we talk about pregnant people, there is at least some idea that a man is 50% of how that situation arose, so I think I have some stake in the debate.

Finally, there is no debate on this side about what a woman is. If somebody is pregnant, in my world they are most certainly a woman. I cannot envisage any situation where somebody other than a woman would be pregnant. I am happy to take direction from the noble Baroness if she has such things.

My Amendment 461B is focused particularly on protecting young girls. To address this gap, my amendment would introduce a mandatory safeguarding investigation whenever an abortion is performed on a girl under the age of 16. This measure is in the best interest of vulnerable women and does not impede lawful medical care. It would simply ensure that when a child undergoes an abortion, relevant authorities are alerted and must promptly investigate the circumstances. Specifically, the investigation would seek to determine whether the pregnancy resulted from a criminal offence, such as rape or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act; whether the girl was subjected to coercion, exploitation or abuse; and 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 is that an investigation-free zone is ripe for abuse. If you are an abuser, what you need is privacy. Clause 191 would provide privacy for many abusers, and that needs to be looked at very seriously.

The idea that there is a surge of young women who are being investigated needs to be taken into account, because this clause stands or falls on the idea that there are a lot of young women who are under a lot of pressure because of the things that are being suggested.

Clause 191 will bring about the most radical change to abortion laws in a generation, and it was done on the back of very little scrutiny and debate in the other place. I believe it falls to us in this Chamber to give it our full, undivided attention.

The other question I pose to the Minister is: what level of support is there for this publicly? We have heard that many of the professional bodies support the Bill, but do the public support it? Are they in the same place? Have they been consulted on what this would mean? I do not mean, “Do they support abortion?”; I mean, “Do they support the effect that this Bill would have?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has had a lot of the Committee’s indulgence. We will take that as her finishing.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the Committee was moving. When the Whips tell us to conclude, we really should conclude.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, some of us have been sitting through this debate right from the very beginning. Others have come in late and then made certain speeches. I notice that the noble Lord had to read what he had to say as well. Therefore, I will just say to him very gently, and as graciously as I can, that this is a very vital issue. There are those of us who believe that it is important to say what we have to say carefully and clearly, and we are therefore seeking to put a point on the record.

People are watching this. I must be honest, having sat here for so long, one can be very confused in our debates. On Friday, we were debating allowing and encouraging sick and elderly people to end their lives as quickly as possible, but now we are debating something that does not allow healthy babies to even live their lives, so people outside are confused about where we stand. Therefore, there is a matter that we need to deal with on this issue.

I say this as a father; my wife and I have five children, and we lost one child. I therefore resent anyone saying that I do not know what this is. As a father of five children who has brought them up through all those years, I certainly know, even to this day, what it is to bring up children. Women who are pregnant, whether it is an intended pregnancy or not, deserve compassion, support and honesty from us in this place as we debate these matters—as do children who are capable of being born alive. My concern is that Clause 191 unsettles a delicate legal balance—one that many of us already feel is too casual—on the rights of the unborn child, without the security that such a change demands.

In 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 and 17 minutes. These are important matters. I do not cite those figures to denigrate either the topics that were debated or the business managers in the other place. I am pointing out that I find it remarkable that the entire debate on this issue in the other House, which concerned not only Clause 191 but 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.

In fact, it is even worse: some 46 minutes were available for speeches from the Back Benches. That is how long the other place took to come to a conclusion on decriminalisation concerning this issue. This is not responsible lawmaking on a matter that carries profound consequences for the status of the unborn and the safety of women. That is why I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in opposing Clause 191, and associate myself entirely with those who have spoken on that issue in support of her.

This is not simply a matter of differing worldviews or perspectives on the subject of abortion. Legal opinion, including that of Stephen 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. We have heard another legal opinion, but, as we know, lawyers make their money by disagreeing with one another.

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 upend our current settlement. As the gestation of a pregnancy advances, the state’s interest increases. This is not arbitrary: it recognises the view that with increasing viability must come increasing protection for the unborn. This is an explicit recognition not only that are two lives involved in any pregnancy but that they both require protection.

This is also a matter of safety. On complications, a government review published in November 2023 found that medical abortions after 20 weeks, even in clinical settings, have a complication rate more than 160 times higher than that of abortions under 10 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. It says that,

“where … medication is administered at home, complications may be less likely to be recorded”.

Without an in-person check, women can obtain pills, perhaps mistakenly or through pressure, far beyond the 10-week limit for pills-by-post abortions. As it is, this seems a recipe for a disaster, but, with the deterrent effect of the current law removed by Clause 191, I fail to see how this problem will not be exacerbated and how more women will not be placed in precisely these higher-risk situations.

This is why Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, ably supported and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, matters. By restoring in-person consultation before pills are prescribed, the amendment simply returns us to a best practice model with regard 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 a pro-safety one which, according to the poll of 2,103 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.