Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness Maclean of Redditch

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking late in the debate and others have made many points. I just want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group and say a few brief words about the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to which I am a signatory. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud, Lady Eaton and Lady Lawlor.

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 do not 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 time in their lives. But we owe it to ourselves and to the women affected to be honest about the reality of what we are 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 whether 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 12 inches long, weighing about 1.5 pounds, with a fully formed face. The NHS website tells us that at 32 weeks, an unborn baby is perfectly formed and just needs to put on weight. Once delivered, we wonder what happens to the infant. They are classified as clinical waste to be incinerated; at earlier gestations, women are advised that they can take the remains home, bury them in the garden, flush them down the toilet or place them in household rubbish.

There is no extensive research on the long-term emotional impact on women of 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 is a taboo subject associated with complex feelings. There is hardly any information about what it actually involves or how it will impact women and their bodies. Removing any legal deterrent, as this clause does, means that 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. 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.

I come at this, respectfully, from a totally different perspective from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and others, because we know that abuse often takes the form of reproductive coercion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, explained in the case of Stuart Worby, and we know that this is a pattern for grooming gang victims as well. I fully accept that this is not the design or intent of the policy, but it very much is the unintended consequence. 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.

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 the suffering of women. 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 1861, may be old, but it is still the basis of our laws today against GBH and manslaughter, and nobody would suggest that they are obsolete. The idea that women are facing life in prison 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. As for the numbers, the groups who are campaigning for this tell us that six women have been prosecuted over the past three years. Given that there are now almost 300,000 abortions a year, it is hard to see why this justifies such a significant change. Of course, it is regrettable if there are women who have been wrongly investigated, but that is a police matter. We do not disapply other laws simply because people are sometimes wrongly investigated. It is critical that we make the distinction between babies who would and would not be viable outside the womb; that is why we have the 24-week limit.

The Member in another place who tabled Clause 191, Tonia Antoniazzi, 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 would be the effect of this clause?

Many have spoken about the dangers of telemedicine, so I will not expand on that, but we discussed that in the assisted dying debate. Under that Bill, two doctors would at least 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 whether they are under the limit before which it is legal and safe to take pills or even pregnant at all.

I turn briefly to my Amendments 459B and 461G. While I sincerely hope that this Committee will support the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in case it does not, I have 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 502A is to make the regulations in proposed new subsection (3) subject to the affirmative procedure. 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.

I have also tabled Amendment 461G, which would require an annual report concerning abortion drugs that have been obtained illegally, maybe online, which I worry will become more likely under Clause 191. Of course, this need not relate solely to women considering an abortion themselves—it might relate to third parties or traffickers who obtain pills illegally 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 a safeguarding concern.

I should mention that I was unable to table any amendments to require the Government to collect numbers of pills by post that are issued or to require that this is captured on women’s medical records because those issues are not in the scope of the Bill. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would look at those issues because I think they are 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. We have many noble Lords in this House who practise medicine, yet we could see women coming to them and not disclosing that they have taken pills by post in the past. The cases that have led to the clamour for decriminalisation up to birth have resulted from pills by post and the inability to ensure that safeguards are maintained. Taking these pills outside the 10-week gestational limit is a dangerous course of action. The Department for Health and Social Care consultation found that the risks of this would include an ongoing viable pregnancy, reduced efficacy of abortions and death. I hope the House will consider my amendments as additional safeguards for women and girls, and I commend them to the House.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid it is clear that there are still a number of Back-Benchers who wish to speak on these amendments as well as the Front-Benchers, so I now propose to adjourn the debate on Amendment 455, move to dinner break business and then resume the debate on the Bill. I advise your Lordships’ House that notice has been taken of those who are here for the debate on Amendment 455, so when we resume, we will be able to continue the debate in an orderly fashion.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness Maclean of Redditch

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.

I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.

Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.

On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.

The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.

We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.