Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The simple point is that if Clause 191 is incorporated into the Bill, we will have a situation where many more women are under threat of coercion and many more women will face complications. Even the incomplete and substandard figures produced by the Department of Health on abortion in 2023 show that, at over 20 weeks’ gestation, 60.3% of women per 100,000 experienced complications arising from abortion in all clinical settings. That phenomenon will continue and will get worse. I hope that that is sufficient for the noble Baroness.

My amendment is directed towards striking an appropriate balance by providing legal certainty that would prevent overzealous investigation, weighed against the need to protect children. By defining clear thresholds for investigation, we protect vulnerable women while 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 investigable, what standards apply and how to act lawfully and consistently.

In conclusion, if Parliament insists on decriminalising the woman’s role in procuring her own abortion, it has a profound moral duty to ensure that the law can still protect the infant the moment it leaves the womb. Amendment 461F 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. I urge Ministers to consider my Amendment 461F carefully as the Bill moves to Report.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, until recently I was head of the Royal College of GPs. Our college is fully in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. 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”.


I would like to pick up a few issues. I have been fortunate enough to work in the NHS, in a legal state in terms of abortion, which has been absolutely fabulous, because I have seen many young women and girls and older women coming and needing terminations of pregnancy and I have guided them through it. I want to talk about a few things—for a start, telemedicine and “medicines by post” and the assumption that this is somehow a bad thing. I would like to turn it all round and say that this is a patient-centric initiative. Imagine having to travel far and to have to go past your abusive husband or abusive partner to say where you have been all day. This is humane and patient-centric and about 50% of women choose this option.

It does not mean that they do not get a proper assessment. Many people are assuming yet again that it is a sort of tick box. It is an hour-long consultation with pre- and post-termination counselling and at any point the woman can be seen face to face. I have also been hearing an assumption that it is an unsafe procedure. I think that I heard—I may have misheard—that one in 17 women end up having complications from having had a medical termination. That is not the figures from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It says that, under 10 weeks, one in 1,000 women have heavy bleeds and at, over 20 weeks, four in 1,000 do. Those women are in hospital. Clearly it is very different. It is nothing like one in 17. You also have to compare that—we have the comparator—with women who miscarry at home without having an abortion, who probably end up in hospital, as I did twice as a young woman when I had miscarriages. I also want to pick up the issue that somehow telemedicine is a process without any legal requirements. Of course it has legal requirements. It is currently, and will continue to be, regulated under the abortion law. What we are doing is decriminalising it.

I then want to talk about foeticide or foetal sex selection. Foetal sex can be determined as early as 10 weeks and many women choose, for one reason or another, to know the sex of their child. Both my daughters-in-law—I was going say my sons but, of course, for the purpose of this, boys cannot become pregnant—chose to determine the sex of their child, just as many people do. It is perfectly legal to determine the sex of your child—at the 20-week scan, anyway, you can choose to determine the sex. Women can then choose to have a legal termination if they so wish, though I am struck by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, saying that there are legal implications. 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 would also just like to address the under-16s and compulsory safeguarding assessments under what I assume would be a multi-agency assessment, including the police and social workers. As the law stands, women under 16 can obtain an abortion and obtain sexual health advice and contraception without safeguarding implications—clearly noble Lords all know about Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines. This would be a retrograde step. These young girls would not come to see us. They would probably end up like one patient who I saw very late in pregnancy. She presented with a rash on her abdomen, which is the rash with stretch marks; she was 32-weeks pregnant. She was so terrified—and this was before the law changed—of admitting that she had had unprotected sex and had not had her period. Compulsory safeguarding is a retrograde step and has nothing to do with this decriminalisation, which I fully support.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I mainly want to defend Clause 191 remaining in the Bill, but with some reservations. Before that, I want to acknowledge public interest in this issue and a popular worry that it is all about legalising abortion up to birth. That is what is being discussed. Worse than that, people believe that somehow this legal change was rushed through the other place almost by the back door. Legalising abortion up to birth is not what is contained in Clause 191, but I have sympathy with the public’s confusion over that and criticism about how the clause was added to the Bill in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about some of this and everybody else has now mentioned just how little time was spent discussing this in the other place. More important, most people did not know it was coming. Most members of the public were not expecting such a big change in the law. Wherever you stand on this, abortion might be a settled entitlement for women—most people accept that abortion exists in society—but it is still a morally charged, difficult discussion. For some, conscience is involved. There are contestations, certainly about when life begins.

We cannot deny it: if anything talks to going beyond 24 weeks—and, as we have heard today, even 24 weeks is contentious or becoming so; it should not be, but it is—the public are perfectly right to be a bit furious and feel that somehow the democratically accountable system has been snubbed. I say that because this debate needs more discussion and depth. I am glad to hear that we are getting some of it here, but we certainly did not get it when the clause was brought into the Bill in the House of Commons. That has led to a big backlash, which, as it happens, is not necessarily the best atmosphere in which to conduct a rational, reasoned debate.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name, Amendment 426D. I start by thanking the Minister for meeting me a couple of weeks ago to discuss this matter—and I want to be direct at the outset about what the amendment would do and would not do.

The amendment is distinct from Amendment 425, which stands on its own merits, and which your Lordships will consider on its own terms. This amendment says nothing about adult women’s access to abortion, nothing about where medication is taken and nothing about the broader questions that have been part of our debate up till now. It rests entirely on one safeguarding principle—that when a child is the patient, a professional should meet her before prescribing. I believe that that is something that your Lordships can support, regardless of the views that you hold on everything else before the House today.

The amendment is brought on behalf of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children—NHS doctors and nurses who carry statutory safeguarding responsibilities for children across every local safeguarding partnership in England. Its concern is that the needs of children, particularly looked-after children who become pregnant, are not sufficiently accounted for in this clause. Since 2022, a girl of 14 can telephone an abortion service, receive medication by post, take it at home, and no clinician will ever meet her. How does that give confidence that safeguarding risks are being properly assessed? How does the provider of medication know whether there is someone else in the room when they speak to the child on the phone? How do they know whether someone else has suggested that the child should make the phone call? Surely the only safe way to assess risk is to meet in person.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says that telemedicine is safe. I fully respect her experience in this field and, in many situations, I would agree, but in the case of children, of which I note she made no mention in her speech, I believe she is wrong. Telemedicine is not safe for children.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

Is the right reverend Prelate aware that coercion can also occur in the consultation room, as I have seen many times? It may actually be safer for the girl—or the child, as he is calling her—to be able to choose the place and the time where she has that consultation.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

I am very aware that there are risks to all forms of consultation. My argument is simply that the risks are minimised by in-person consultation.

The considered view of safeguarding professionals in the NNDHP is that the current guidance put in place by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2022 is simply not robust enough. That guidance, I note, requires an in-person meeting for children under 13. Children under 16 are,

“normally … required to complete their consultation in-person, unless there is a compelling indication to do otherwise”.

Evidence, however, suggests that most providers of abortion care are arguing that the option of telemedicine itself is a compelling indication that an in-person consultation is not required. For those aged 16 or 17, the guidance says only that children—and, of course, 16 and 17-year-olds are still children under the Children Act—should “be encouraged” to attend in person. More fundamentally, guidance can currently be changed unilaterally, without parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, at the discretion of the body that issued it. I believe, therefore, that legislation is required. What Parliament enacts, only Parliament can remove.

The case for this amendment, however, does not rest on my view or the NNDHP’s alone. The Government’s own consultation found that safeguarding organisations specifically identified under-18s as the group for whom in-person assessment was most critical to reduce the risk from those who sexually exploit children, manipulate the system or force their victims to obtain abortion. Indeed, MSI Reproductive Choices has documented that face-to-face appointments are associated with a significant increase in domestic abuse disclosures compared with telemedicine. This is especially significant given that girls and young women face a higher risk of coercive or abusive relationships than those aged over 24, and are often less equipped to ask for help.

The clinical risks compound this. Beyond 11 weeks’ gestation, home management is not appropriate and the risks to the patient increase significantly. As has been mentioned, accurate gestational age assessment is the foundation on which safe prescribing depends, and it cannot be done reliably by telephone. These are not theoretical risks. We have heard stories already. I would simply add that of a 16 year-old who was estimated by the clinic to be under eight weeks pregnant, but the baby she delivered was in fact 20 weeks. She later said, “If they had scanned me and I knew that I was that far gone, I would have had him”. An in-person appointment would have changed everything for that young woman. This amendment would require such an appointment.

I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her amendment. Without an in-person consultation, it is unclear how we will ensure that early medical abortions take place within the law. Indeed, challenges around vulnerability and correct gestational assessment apply to adulthood as well, which is why I fully support Amendment 425.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have finished. That was it.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can we please take the temperature down and respect the Clock? There are 10 minutes for Back-Bench contributions. Of course, many people want to get in, but please take the temperature down—there is no need to constantly interrupt others. Everyone can speak. We will come to the Cross Benches first and then go to the noble Baroness opposite.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to pick up some of the safeguarding issues around telemedicine that have been mentioned in the House. To put things in context briefly, I have been a GP now for nearly 40 years, and over the past five years I have been conducting many remote consultations.

First, you can assess safeguarding issues remotely. A paper was published in 2025—very recently—on young girls under 16. More than 600 young girls were involved in the study. It found that 100% of the safeguarding issues—some of these girls then had to be seen face to face—were identified remotely. The conclusion, which is very short, states:

“Requiring in-person adolescent consultation is associated with reduced access to medication abortion without enhancing safeguarding”.


We do want to work with evidence. You might think it is safer to consult face to face, but the evidence shows that it is not safer: it can actually make it more harmful.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

Well, the evidence is there. You either believe in evidence or anecdotes.

The second issue is about ultrasounds. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend ultrasounds for judging gestational age, unless there are problems: for example, if a woman’s menstrual cycle is long or if there are other issues. Again, we have to go by the evidence: not what we think or feel, what we read in the papers or what we discuss with our friends.

I will also comment on assessing competence in younger children under 16. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has an amendment about mental capacity. I am sure that she is aware that the Mental Capacity Act cannot be used in relation to under-16s. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s amendment, if passed, would automatically mean that a 16 year-old would be prosecuted if she had no mental capacity, yet a 17 year-old could use that Act. So it is a nonsense amendment in that respect.

I fully support Clause 208 and I urge the House—on humane reasons, on competence and capacity, and, moreover, on evidence—to support it.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 424, tabled my noble friend Lady Monckton, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I have put my name to both amendments. I will be brief.

Despite the careful unpacking in Committee of the human and legal problems that Clause 208 will create, no amendments have been put down that address them. As we know, there have been no impact assessments and no public consultation, though third-party polling shows a very large majority opposed to abortion up to the point of birth. No effort has been made to gain insight into the extent to which the existing telemedicine scheme is abused, as its laxness means it must inevitably be to some extent. The lack of real answers to the questions asked in Committee make it all too clear that the Government intend to keep their eyes closed and ears stoppered to shut out evidence of abuses. Sadly, some, though not all, of the medical profession also find it easier not to think about the lives of unborn children, no matter how close to birth.

The status quo is, therefore, profoundly unsatisfactory. If this clause is passed, it will signal to all women that there is zero risk to them personally in abusing the telemedicine scheme or procuring an illegal abortion in another way. So, of course, abuses will increase—that is how humans respond to bad incentives—and each abuse is likely to mean that a viable child is killed with impunity. I recognise that, despite the obvious risks that the clause introduces, it is tempting to support it in order to feel good about yourself and show that you are someone who really cares about women—but this requires suppressing all thoughts of children’s lives.