Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, there is a lot in the Bill that I welcome, although I have some sympathy with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier about how we keep creating law upon law. One answer to that is that, when Governments lose rulings in the courts, often the only way to try to tackle what Governments perhaps thought was in place is to introduce new primary legislation, to make sure that the will of Parliament can be put in place in how we govern our country. To that end, there are a number of issues where I am concerned that, on some elements, that this Bill is now going too far, or indeed, on others, may not be going far enough.

It was Richard Graham, former MP for Gloucester, who first raised the issue of spiking in the Commons several years ago, and it has been taken up by Joe Robertson, the Member of Parliament for Isle of Wight East. Where he is in difficulty or dispute with the Government is in his concern that the threshold for prosecution is concerningly low. We have discussed already this week when you prosecute on spying: when you prosecute on spiking is what my honourable friend wishes to address. In particular, he wants to talk about—and I will continue to do this with others in this House—reckless behaviour that could, instead of just being intended to annoy, actually be prank spiking, which can have serious consequences.

We report fraud through either recorded crimes or surveys. The crime that people fear the most and experience the most in this country is fraud, yet Part 8 is quite light, although perhaps this is a case of how we need to try to make sure we get more resources in the police focused on the crime that is considered to affect most people in this country, rather than more statutory duties. Nevertheless, this is something that needs tackling right across the country, and not just by online reporting to somewhere in the City of London Police, perhaps never to be seen again. At the moment, of course, the banks will pick up the bill by refunding victims of fraud, but that cost goes across all of us who have bank accounts, and that is something to be considered.

Quite rightly, there is a lot of debate about reporting. We talk about children under the age of 16 having sex, getting treatments or getting the morning-after pill. It is a long time since parents were basically blocked from learning about this activity, even though it is their child who is involved in underage sex. I would be interested to explore during debate on the Bill the fine line about what is right for the child but also where the parent has the primary responsibility for looking after their child.

I think of Luke 17:2. I appreciate that the Bishops are not present in the debate at this moment, but I am concerned about Clauses 72 and 79 when it comes to the confessional, and I would be interested to discuss this further with the Minister, perhaps outside the Chamber.

In terms of reporting, the BBC has asked me to raise a particular issue regarding Schedule 8(2)(d). It is very keen to ensure that undercover journalism is seen as a reasonable excuse, rather than having their journalists inadvertently criminalised.

In terms of the other aspects of this Bill, it has been well trailed already that Clause 191 is probably the most controversial, brought in at the other end. A lot of the prosecutions that have been referenced already are due to “pills by post”, which ultimately was passed in the House of Commons by 27 votes a few years ago. It is very difficult—in fact, it is impossible at the moment—to get any statistics. We do not record how many pills by post are issued. We have not yet been able to get the abortion statistics, primarily because the ONS is not able to capture them at the moment—the whole use of HSA forms and similar. However, I think we need to consider this further and in much more detail, including what further changes the Government intend to make to the law to cover those who provide abortion services illegally.

I am sorry to go on about the 1861 Act, but I am afraid that it is the basis of lots of charges brought in this country—murder, use of chloroform, lots of different things. To try to say that it is an out-of-date Act is irrelevant to the reality of how we use our laws today. For this, I am looking forward not just to further comments from the Minister today but to debate during Committee.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. I declare an interest of sorts in that I have a young daughter who is fast approaching her teenage years. The idea that she might one day be the subject of the kind of despicable abuse that my noble friend Lady Owen and others have outlined is utterly terrifying, so I am determined to do my part to secure its eradication.

My noble friend Lady Owen outlined the case for her amendments with all the skill and more of any King’s Counsel, so I do not need to say very much, but I want to highlight, in particular, her call for Parliament to be agile on this subject. The speed of proliferation of the kinds of abuse she has talked about risks Parliament looking lead-footed and out of touch if we do not take the further steps that she advocates through her amendments. There is no place for wait-and-see incrementalism in this area.

Any concerns about freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act, which from time to time we hear whispers of, are in my view entirely misplaced. The right to freedom of expression is qualified; it is not absolute. It is plainly not a licence to abuse. I ask rhetorically, and genuinely seeking an answer from the Minister: why not do it?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed Amendment 334 on spiking, but I want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge as she yet again leads the way on the important issues in her other amendments.

Clause 101, on spiking, is certainly welcome. The measure appeared in the previous version of the Bill in the previous Parliament, and I give credit to Richard Graham, the former MP for Gloucester, who brought this to the attention of Parliament. More broadly, I have a little question for the Minister. I am always very nervous when civil servants recommend that we remove things from existing legislation. I notice that the clause will remove Section 22 and Section 23 at the beginning and then there is the broader new Section 24. What has driven that? Too often things disappear and end up with some kind of defect or loophole. That is exactly what concerned my friend Joe Robertson MP, who tabled an amendment like my noble friend’s Amendment 334 on Report in the Commons, having tabled something similar in Committee. His concern was that there is a loophole and that spiking by a reckless act should also be an offence.

I do not need to persuade your Lordships that spiking is a hideous, heinous activity which can destroy people’s physical and mental health. The evidence given by Colin Mackie from Spike Aware UK at Committee stage in the Commons was compelling, especially as it was driven by his personal experience of his 18 year-old son Greg dying through suspected spiking of the kind now known as prank spiking.

At the moment, Clause 101 provides that there has to be an intent to injure, aggrieve or similar. I know that Ministers in the other place felt that the Bill covers recklessness, but I think it is pretty clear that the legislation does not particularly seem to cover prank spiking.

Recklessness is a well-trodden principle in criminal law, dating back a couple of hundred years. It is definitively an alternative to intent so, if the prosecution fails to establish that someone meant to do something, it can also establish that their actions were so reckless that they should be convicted. Indeed, this is what manslaughter is—somebody gets convicted of killing but without having the intent to commit murder. The other example, perhaps not quite so dramatic, is actual bodily harm. The prosecution must establish the harm but can do so on the basis that what was done was reckless so that harm was bound to follow rather than simply that someone intended for harm to happen.

I hope the Government will reconsider their conclusion that what we have before us in Clause 101 is sufficient. I understand that it may be that one MP has got particularly focused on this campaign, but it took Richard Graham to get focused on the issue of spiking for it to make any progress into legislation in the other place. I am grateful to this Administration for picking that up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope again that there may be room for some consensus, not just compromise, on how we can make sure there are no loopholes in this law.

[Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Owen and will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As we have heard today, technology continues to provide new avenues for abuse, in particular for the abuse of women. Abusers use technology in ever more inventive ways to harm, harass and try to humiliate their victims. Thanks to the work of my noble friend Lady Owen and others in this House, the law has made huge strides in recent years; however, more needs to be done.

Broadly, these amendments fall into two categories: those that seek to update the law to ensure that it addresses new and growing forms of tech-enabled abuse, and those that seek to provide more effective support to the victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. We need action on both fronts. I will not go into detail here, as it has already been covered, but I will just reiterate that some of the gaps that need to be closed are: updating our definition of what constitutes taking an image; including audio recordings in the framework for tackling non-consensual intimate images; ensuring that images which may have been innocuous when they were taken but are then transformed into something sexual or degrading are also captured by the law; and, finally, recognising the practice of doxing as an aggregating factor.

Unfortunately, we know that, however the law changes, abuse will not be eliminated any time soon, so we must also ensure that the law supports victims in the aftermath of their abuse. As it stands, there is no proper framework to ensure that intimate images that the courts have found to be taken or shared illegally are then removed and destroyed. Instead, survivors see their images being repeatedly uploaded, posted on to pornography sites, shared in anonymous chat forums and even allowed to remain untouched on their abusers’ devices or cloud accounts. It cannot be right; the law must change. Between them, Amendments 295BA, 295BB, 295BC and 295BD would create a proper mechanism for victims to ensure that images are promptly removed from online platforms, deleted and then hashed to prevent them from resurfacing elsewhere.

Making progress on this issue is crucial. We know the trauma caused to victims who have to live with their images remaining online or live with the knowledge that they could be re-uploaded at any point. As one survivor told the Women and Equalities Committee:

“I am terrified of applying for jobs for fear that the prospective employer will google my name and see. I am terrified when meeting new people that they will google my name and see. I am terrified that every person I meet has seen”.


We cannot allow this situation to continue. The amendments from my noble friend Lady Owen would make the law more effective, more enforceable and more protective to victims, and I hope that we will be able to make progress on them in this House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment is about ensuring that officers are not placed in avoidable danger because the law fails to keep pace with the operational realities of being a police officer. It gives officers a simple, proportionate tool to manage one of the most dangerous situations they can find themselves in. It is a routine situation for many officers, but it is highly dangerous. When I spoke to the Police Federation about this, it said that, hand on heart, it cannot tell its members that stopping a vehicle is safe. That is something we really need to get into because if it keeps having that conversation with its members, we then have a police service that cannot carry out its duties in this way. It also challenges police chiefs, because they have to guarantee that they are training their officers to deal with situations they will regularly be in. If this situation is seen as too risky, we will still be having traffic stops? We need them; they are a valuable tool.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 416B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and signed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. There is no real justification for any vehicle to be on the highway and uninsured. There will be a variety of reasons for it be uninsured—car insurance is very expensive, and the like—but, in reality, there is no excuse. Therefore, this is a sensible measure, recognising that a number of public bodies have the power to not only seize vehicles but crush them instantaneously. As a consequence, this seems like a modest measure to allow people 28 days, or four weeks, to make sure that the car has been insured.

As an aside, I should perhaps approach my noble friend because my car insurance went up massively this year. Perhaps I need to come and find him to discuss this. I am not quite sure what has happened in my life. Joining the House of Lords seems to have massively increased the risk, apparently.

That said, I am not as convinced by a number of the other amendments, although I understand the seriousness of drink-driving and the impact it can have. My noble friend Lord Attlee talked about the evidence, and the balance regarding whether the limit is 50 or 80. All the evidence so far has shown there is a massive distinction, so it not only covers England, but Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Scotland has gone to 50, recognising some of the other measures they have introduced in order to tackle the consumption of alcohol, such as minimum alcohol pricing. However, I am not convinced that this is the reason why.

I am not trying to advocate drink-driving at all, but I think of rural pubs and the like, where people believe that they can probably have a pint of beer and be able to drive their friends or family home safely without needing to make a calculation. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is trying to do in attempting to address something from the 2006 Act, but there is a reason why, 19 years on, it still has not been put into place. The evidence has shown it just has not been needed in that regard.

I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said about the drive-away. I was genuinely interested in trying to understand where he was going with his amendment, and whether this was really an issue. I was struck by the number of significant accidents in that regard. It is worth considering whether this is an issue solely for the Met, in London, or whether it is an issue elsewhere, before the Government consider making any further changes.

I understand where my noble friend Lord Attlee is heading with the random breath test, but I take a different perspective. I am not sure of the best way to say this, other than to say that I do not want the police to have a reason to stop people for just anything. They should have a real reason to stop people going about their everyday lives. I understand what he is trying to achieve in his amendment, but we need to make sure that when the police use their already extraordinary powers, it is because they believe that somebody is genuinely doing something wrong. Therefore, the current position is sufficient. I hope that my noble friend, with whom I do not disagree very often, will understand why I disagree with him on his amendment tonight.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, to make a counterargument, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but the fact of the matter is that if the police want to stop someone, they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The road safety strategy review is being undertaken by the DfT, so it is a little outside my bailiwick to speak on it. There may well be lots of provisions in the strategy—this is more my speculation than anything else—that do not require primary or secondary legislation. The strategy will be out soon, and we are about halfway through Committee.

My noble friend’s amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with considerable knowledge of the insurance industry and the costs of free riding in car insurance and those who do not act responsibly. As I have indicated, the police already have powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles that are driven without insurance. This amendment goes further by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days.

Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time-bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance. This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within the seven-day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. Disposal can mean sale, destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent. This step ensures transparency, and due process for ownership is effectively transferred. These provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost, recovery, and fairness to vehicle owners.

Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was discussing as well. My noble friend has pointed to the fact that at £300, the maximum fixed penalty notice for this offence is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I have said, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this will, among other things, set out our proposals for changes to motoring offences. I invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Clearly, the intention of noble Lords is to bring this forward because the feeling is that the power is not being used very often. Will this road strategy put in place the existing data or encourage its use to its full effect if this amendment is not required?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am at no greater advantage than other Members of your Lordships’ House regarding what will be in the road safety strategy. There is a good reason why these amendments are grouped together: they all raise issues which will be covered in some way by the road safety strategy. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hayter, there could be things in the strategy that do not require changes to the guidance, or action in primary or secondary legislation that allows us to act quickly. However, I would be speaking well beyond my responsibilities in speaking for the DfT, for which I have absolutely no responsibility.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I want to speak to the three amendments which I have tabled in this group. I urge noble Lords to show the normal courtesies that we extend when a Peer is speaking to an amendment that he or she has tabled.

I will start with my Amendments 456B, 461H and 461K. Amendment 456B is the third amendment in this group. As matters stand, the law allows for abortions only under certain clearly defined conditions after 24 weeks. Amendment 456B aims to ensure that women follow these conditions after 24 weeks. I suppose it is the most important of my three amendments, which is why I am 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. My Amendment 456B would help to ensure that present-day legislation is observed by stipulating that criminal culpability is removed from the woman 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. The law is clear that before 24 weeks there is a procedure and 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 allowed to go ahead only under a defined, limited process and subject to stringent conditions, such as that the mother’s life would be endangered or that the child would be born with serious defects.

These matters have been raised as if they do not exist. These stipulations have been raised in the Chamber as if they were not already part of the law. When a woman procures an abortion outside the legal procedure before 24 weeks, she almost certainly would have had the abortion lawfully. The fault is one of failing to go through the proper procedures. However, for abortions performed outside the law after 24 weeks, the position is completely different. These are abortions which may 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 been legally permitted to do so and might have been denied the permission. Remember that, in cases post 24 weeks, the babies concerned may well be viable.

The new clause removes criminal culpability from women for abortions at any time. 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. I was very impressed by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on these points.

I will conclude on this one, which will be the longest. It has been pointed out that 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? Although the act remains a crime, the law excuses the main perpetrator. This would leave us with an act that remains a crime but the law excusing the main perpetrator of any blame. Is this the sort of society we want to create?

I move on to my Amendments 461K and 461H.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

While the noble Baroness finds her notes, I will say that I think Amendment 461K is a really interesting one. How are the Government going to make sure that providers of a variety of abortions actually operate within the law and make those checks? This is something I will be discussing regarding my amendment shortly as the debate continues.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 461A, which would amend the Abortion Act. It is worth briefly stepping back. I completely understand why people have very different views on whether this is right or wrong or similar, or whether this is a healthcare treatment, but we have a law in place that puts restrictions on when abortions can happen.

It might perhaps feel that those restrictions are really just lip service. I say that because, in 2013 and 2016, the number of abortions was about 185,000 in England and Wales. It is now 278,000. A particular change started to happen in the statistics back in 2019, as, for the first time, people were allowed to take the second abortion pill at home. The first pill had to be taken in some kind of clinical setting, and then people could take the second pill at home. We saw a jump at that point, to about 207,000. I think I am right that 36% of abortions were taken at that point—that is about 75,000—where we saw the second pill be taken at home. We are now in a situation where, with the significant increase—a 50% uplift from a decade ago—72% of abortions are undertaken by both pills being taken at home. That is about 200,000 abortions in the year 2023, so there has been a significant change.

For what it is worth, I think that that is quite a sad figure. I appreciate that there will be people in this Committee who do not care what the number is—it is a woman’s right to choose. I do not agree with, or even respect, that point of view, but I understand it.

As has already been eloquently pointed out, we are now in a situation where Parliament still agrees that a crime may have been committed, but that, through Clause 191, the person carrying the foetus cannot be held responsible in any way. Therefore, the point of my amendment is to suggest that, instead of relying on good faith from the providers, we move to beyond reasonable doubt. I think that there is an element of my noble friend’s Amendment 461K, which proposes a new clause to make sure that the services provided are done in a lawful way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

Can the noble Baroness help me by clarifying what her amendment would mean? Currently, a provider, or anybody who counsels a woman seeking abortion, will take in good faith what the woman might say to them about her gestation. But the noble Baroness’s amendment would move that to “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is at the level of a criminal court and not a social justice or civil court. That would mean that, in every case, the health professional who counsels the woman would have to provide evidence that they believed her beyond reasonable doubt. That would mean that there would have to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, one reason why I have chosen that phrase particularly at this stage—I might reconsider it for Report—is we are talking about a crime. If this happens beyond the terms which the law sets, it is a crime. This is about the change that happened, moving from taking the second pill at home to then just having both pills wherever. The case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred earlier was one in which another lady got the pills and gave them to the chap. They were then applied unlawfully, obviously, and the other lady was also convicted—admittedly, it was a suspended sentence. But there was accountability.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Is it not the problem that in criminal cases where the reasonable doubt test applies, you often have external evidence, such as witnesses or documents? What my noble friend is talking about here is really an oral conversation, and the only material available to the service provider will be what the prospective mother has to say. It is very difficult on that basis to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

That is why I am not convinced that the situation that we have is satisfactory to uphold the law.

The other reason why noble Lords are concerned about Clause 191 is that Tonia Antoniazzi, who put this measure forward, has said publicly that she is very comfortable with abortions happening at 37 weeks—she has no problem with it at all. But I appreciate that that is not what everybody is in favour of.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to forgive me: I want to speak to a few other amendments, and I am conscious of the time.

The other thing that I am keen to mention is in relation to Amendment 459 in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It is specific to Clause 191. The issue was debated in the Commons in 2014, and the House said then that it was informed that it was completely unlawful. Of course, in the situation we have, you cannot use sex as a reason for an abortion; that would be unlawful. But one way in which this often get used is that someone might say that it would cause huge harm or distress if they were to have a boy or a girl contrary to the wishes of their family. It can be used as an alternative reason to access the various grounds in that regard.

Obviously, we are covering a lot of issues in this one group, which might be a reminder to people that it they could be spread over a few more groups. But we need to tread carefully. I am conscious that the Commons passed this by a huge majority, but I felt that it was just very blanket—almost like they wanted to decriminalise abortion entirely. That was how it came across. Nevertheless, it is our role to consider whether this is where we want to head, or do we actually want to find a better way of upholding the law than we have today, without the unnecessary affliction that some expectant mothers may fear?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 456 and 460. I have been saddened by the lack of appreciation of the protective role that the criminal law brings, and I appreciated the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. But it is important to consider some of the cases that have resulted in convictions and have not been controversial.

Sarah Catt, as reported by the BBC on 17 September 2012, aborted her baby at 39 weeks. She was prosecuted and sentenced for eight years; the body was never found—she disposed of it. The authorities realised because she had been for certain hospital appointments and no birth was registered; they went and investigated, and she said that she had had a legitimate abortion. It turned out that, when they searched her computer, because it was 2012, she had got pills from Mumbai and took those pills, and her husband knew nothing of what was happening. It is important to note that she was sentenced for eight years, and that is important particularly in relation to the amendments that seek to retrospectively pardon people. How will those connected to that lady, grandparents and potentially her husband, feel if that was no longer an offence because it was not controversial at the time? That is what we are dealing with here, that it would no longer be a crime at 39 weeks.

Having listened through many hours of debate now, I am unsure about the clarity and process of the law here. We have seen much suggestion that the pills by post are causing more investigations and heard about the nature of those investigations, but we need more detail and more evidence to legislate properly. Many noble Lords have tried to predict, “Women’s behaviour will do this” or “Women’s behaviour will do that” or “Things on the street”, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said, “will be different”. But we do not know that because we have not had that really important pre-legislative process.

We have also had evidence that there is, in fact, sex-selective abortion going on, and we have had no equality impact assessment. I think that is a big flaw if we legislate on this. However, 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 the 10-week window.

One point that has not been covered is that, obviously, the ambulance crew are often the first people through the door, so I would be grateful if the Minister could actually give some clarity and restate what the law is for those emergency providers faced with that situation. Concepts like birth, born alive and the first breath are not that easy to apply in this scenario. If you look at the Medical Law Review, there is a very interesting article by Elizabeth Romanis, in the winter 2020 edition, looking at advances in medical technology which mean that you can now operate on a foetus and there is a potential for having artificial wombs so 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?

Also, the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, in Article 45, is very strict, unless it is a matter urgency or necessity, to ensure that people who are not medically qualified do not intervene in the birth of a baby; it is actually a criminal offence to do that. So I think we need to know from the Minister the boundary there as well, if there might be people with the woman as she is taking the pills in a late-stage abortion.

Finally, many noble Lords have said that this only had 46 minutes of Back-Bench time in the other place. I have pondered whether there is an opposite to the word “filibuster”, because I think it applies to this particular situation. 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 scrutiny and consultation that are vital to ensure that we pass good laws. I do not think this one is fit, at the moment, without the involvement of the public in consultation, a White Paper, et cetera.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The thing about Amendment 461C, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, is that quite a lot of this data is collected. Clearly, it was late this year, and there would be no point in doing a JR on the basis of that.

I understand that not every abortion happens at the point at which the sex of the foetus is known, but that data would be worth collecting, given the concerns that exist about gender or sex-selective abortion. It might be worth the ONS adding the question to the questionnaire or HSA4 form in the future.

Last year, the collection rate on ethnicity was 92%, but it would be useful to understand what further work the ONS might be doing to try to get that up to 100%.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling these amendments. I have already set out at length the view of the official Opposition on what we see as the procedural issues with Clause 191 in my response to the previous group. I will not repeat myself, but simply refer your Lordships to my previous comments.

My noble friend’s amendments relate to the provision of information and statistics relating to abortions and complications arising from abortions. As has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Moylan in his Private Member’s Bill on this topic, there is an issue with the collection of data for complications from abortions. To conclude, I hope the Minister will be able to set out what action the Government are taking to improve the collection of data for such complications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am very grateful for that guidance, and I apologise for starting to accept what I am sure would have been a sparkling intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

There are huge gaps in our understanding, particularly in relation to complications, but I will not repeat the points I made on my previous amendments. Suffice to say, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive and robust system of data collection. My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Bill, which is currently awaiting Report, seeks to address this deficiency by ensuring that complications are more accurately reported. It would be remiss to proceed with Clause 191 without first seeking to understand the consequences for the recording and monitoring of abortion outside a clinical setting, particularly when we know that the present framework fails to capture the true scale of complications.

Finally, 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 have been afforded no such opportunity.

Whichever side of the debate one may be on, we can surely agree that this is a matter that should not be pursued without proper consultation and consideration on its likely impact. I therefore urge noble Lords to support my amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 562, particularly his proposed new subsection (13)(e). I did not hear from the Minister earlier about what they are going to do once Clause 191 goes ahead—assuming it does; we will decide on Report whether or not that will happen. I do not think that the Minister will answer that today.

Amendment 562 would require the Government to give some proper consideration to how this is going to work in practice before it is enacted. For that reason, it is a sensible way to get a bit of breathing space to open up what we are walking into and, for those where potential crimes are committed, given that one person in the arrangement has been decriminalised, what is going to happen to the people who have facilitated what could be a crime. That is why I support Amendment 562 at this stage.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, basically, this suite of amendments drives a coach and horses through abortion rights as a whole, as well as, of course, completely opposing the clause that is under discussion. For example, virtually zero abortions occur at 39 weeks’ gestation. Taking abortion pills at that stage of gestation would simply induce labour. To accept the amendment would mean continuing criminal offences for abortion for vulnerable women. The same applies to the other suite. There would be delays and reversals, and vulnerable women would continue to face life-changing and traumatic investigations.

Amendment 563 is a wrecking amendment linked to all the other amendments to delay the implementation of the change in law. So while the noble Lord might say that he is—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Forgive me for interrupting the noble Baroness, it is just that the annunciator has still had my name for the last minute, when indeed it is the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. It has just changed now.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

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

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I believe we must fill this gap now to protect the digital integrity of our citizens, to give the police the tools that they need and to send a clear signal that England and Wales will no longer be the easy jurisdiction of choice for identity criminals. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has got to the nub of an issue that seems to fall between a rock and a hard place. One of the issues that we face in terms of the crime survey, which is now being used by the Government as the primary way of deciding police resources, is fraud. Without doubt, the increasing use of digital identity will be the source of more fraud if we are not careful.

The Government seem to be in a predicament about whether to press ahead with digital ID more generally. We saw the resignation of a Minister at the weekend over their dubious ways of trying to challenge the credentials of a journalist assessing the organisation Labour Together. The Government have reappointed a Minister to undertake this task of establishing a digital identity card, which I am led to believe there will be a consultation announcement on within the next week. I hope that the Government are listening to the noble Lord by getting ahead of the issues that could come about with the mass spreading of digital identity.

I am very grateful to Nationwide, which rang to alert me to a fraud that was happening. I had used my card when I was abroad representing Parliament at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and suddenly it was being used in a number of places to secure money. That is a reminder, as we move to this digital approach to money, with cash evaporating, that the last Government did a lot to try to protect cash and to make sure that it was still being used on a widespread basis, and I appreciate that. However, it would be useful to get a sense of what the Government are doing to tackle this very real threat of digital identity theft.

This is particularly pertinent because of the 10-year NHS plan—never mind the 10-year NHS cancer plan—regarding how much is being put into the hands of government. With artificial intelligence understandably being introduced to increase productivity and the deployment of public services, somebody’s identity is precious, and the validity and protection of digital identity can become an extraordinary challenge to somebody’s integrity.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has set out a number of issues in a great deal of detail in Amendment 366, with the proposed new subsection (2)(b) defining what “obtains” would mean. I think it would be helpful to the Committee to understand what protections are in place or being planned by the Government not to mandate the use of initial identity but regarding what their desire is. Again, I understand the desire of the use for government, but what is good for government is also good for general commercial practice.

It would be helpful to get an understanding of why the Government are resisting the amendment—if the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House, I will vote with him in that Division—and a sense of where they believe they have sufficient protections in making this case. We have discussed identity, fake imagery and deepfakes quite a lot during the passage of this Bill. I seem to recall in the last general election that the now Prime Minister was, all of a sudden, in the middle of a deepfake situation, with comments attributed to him that were not made.

We can go further with how technology has advanced in that regard, but where would this go if we started using digital identity to register for elections? Where is this going when it is about accessing cash, frankly, from the Government? I know from running the DWP for three years that, unfortunately, people seem very determined to try to commit fraud to get money to which they are not entitled. But as we continue to try to use AI as a force for good, what are the Government doing to try to stop it being used as a force for bad?

I do not wish to labour the point, but the noble Lord has really hit on something. There is a gap. There is a desire by the Government to do this good, but I think the amendment would plug the gap very well. There are so many instances in this Bill and other Bills which are coming before the House where the Government want all sorts of powers just in case. This is not a “just in case”; this is a “waiting to happen”. It is happening now, so what are we doing to address it?

I go back to the fact that 40% of crime is due to fraud. Two-thirds of that is digital, online fraud. This is affecting not just people in this Chamber but people right across this country, and that is something that I hope the Government will consider carefully. If there was a vote, I would certainly support the amendment to make sure that the Government take note and actually get something done about this. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing back his amendment on Report. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain our support for his measures, and I thank him for continuing his campaign.

I understand that the Minister refrained from supporting the amendment in Committee for fear of unnecessary duplication of legislation. I gently urge him that this provides an opportunity for the opposite. It is common practice across Governments to use new legislation to amalgamate old pieces of legislation into a single draft. This seems the perfect time to do so with digital identity theft.

There is an array of Acts that creates a puzzle from which a digital identity theft offence appears, but it is somewhat distorted, if not fragmented. At least five Acts cover areas of digital identity theft; a wide purview is by no means a bad thing, but they were all designed for a different age. Just reading out the years of our primary Acts demonstrates this: 1968, 1990, 2006 and 2010. Even the Data Protection Act 2018, the most recent application, is for an era without AI.

It is not worth repeating the statistics that we have heard throughout the course of the Bill. A simple fact will suffice: 60% of all fraud cases are identity fraud, and the recent increase has been driven by the internet and artificial intelligence. The Government talk about being ahead of the curve on AI safety and online regulation. That is commendable, but to claim one thing and then refuse to act on it is not. I hope the Minister can at least acknowledge the scale of digital identity theft and its growing prevalence. If he cannot support it now, I hope that he will commit to look into it in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

I assure your Lordships’ House that Parliament will have the opportunity to fully scrutinise legislation introducing national digital ID. The system is expected to be rolled out by the end of this Parliament, and that will be the opportunity to consider these issues around digital ID in the round, also informed by some of the other actions I have talked about, including the forthcoming fraud strategy.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am actually very pro-digital ID, as long as it is not mandatory, but one of the things to improve take-up is the fear that people will have fraud committed against them. This amendment introduces an offence not necessarily to reduce the likelihood of that, but to provide potential weapons that can be used against criminal forces. That is why I am so keen on this amendment.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

While I understand the point the noble Baroness is making, I do not want to presage the content of the fraud strategy, which will be upon us really quite soon, or indeed what is in the legislation that will introduce national digital ID. I absolutely take the point that some people want to encourage digital ID because it gives security of identity in a digital form for deployment in a number of different areas, whether claiming a benefit, voting or whatever use it may offer—I will stop there because my expertise on digital ID does not extend much further. All I will say is that, given the comments I have already made about the Fisher review and the forthcoming fraud strategy, which will address emerging fraud risks, including identity theft, I hope that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I started using a computer before 1990. I was one of those children who started using the BBC Micro—one of the best things the BBC ever produced. Indeed, I learned how to code—admittedly only in BASIC, but sufficient in the days when the internet had not even been created—to start working out how to use data in the computer system.

Unlike the previous amendment, I cannot say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I would support them if they were to call a Division on this amendment. I completely agree with proposed subsections 2A(a) and 5A(a) that

“the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime”

but not this latter bit that they have lumped into it, saying that

“the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest”.

I am a great believer in the public interest, but I find that it is being used now to try to justify too many things, including not releasing information from government. In fact, it would be contrary to the public interest, for example, to release information on some of the Bills that we are debating, not just today but at other times during this Parliament.

Let us just try to get a sense of what is going on with the Computer Misuse Act. Why was it introduced? It was introduced to stop manipulation. At what point does manipulation using computers become justifiable in the public interest? For some, that might be a whistleblower caveat. From what the noble Lord set out, I am not quite sure why this is the defining element. I am conscious that the Government may want to automate even more, so what is the balance with what is there to prevent crimes and similar? I appreciate that we do not want bureaucracy and legislation to get in the way of generally trying to stop harm, but what is the impact of the other elements of the noble Lord’s amendments? They could actually deploy harm while still trying to justify it in the public interest.

I appreciate there is sometimes a resistance to old legislation, but old legislation is not necessarily stuck in its time. There are many other Acts that go back hundreds of years that are still perfectly valid because the principles are the same. I would be concerned if we walked into allowing this amendment to go through without testing the opinion of the House to try to assess precisely what actions the noble Lord is trying to allow by making a case for the defence that something be done in public interest. That is why I express my concerns tonight.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak against Amendment 367. I have the gravest concerns about it. I am not going to echo everything my noble friend Lady Coffey said, but it amounts to a hackers’ charter. I take security and IT security very seriously. I am responsible for IT security in my business. We are in a sensitive industry—we are involved in global trade—never more so than today, when ammonia and natural gas are under global pressure as part of a war. You have to take these things seriously.

When I joined your Lordships’ House two years ago, there was a briefing and I was pleased that I was one of a handful of Peers and MPs who had a password manager. Every password I have is at least 16 characters—they are random and not one is repeated. You have to take this stuff seriously—no pet names, not using your wife’s name or possibly a wedding anniversary. Using a VPN is important as well.

No matter what precautions you take, however, someone is always going to have a go. What this amendment does is give the malevolent hacker a free pass to get through: a ready defence. It is not just that. We need to recognise that technology is changing all the time. All the things I may do with passwords are not enough. Even using face, voice, biometrics and two-factor authentication, cloned SIM cards or using public wifi to intercept signals are important ways in which even the most diligent and careful person can have their data compromised. There are people who want to abuse your privacy or insult your business. We can simply create a crime, but we must take a huge number of steps to avoid jeopardy or giving them a “get out of jail free” card.

In my view, this amendment would mean that, if somebody finds something, they get off, but if they do not find anything then they are guilty. All those years ago when I was at school, we were taught about trial by ordeal. If you gripped a red hot iron bar and you got blisters, you were guilty; if a lady was put on the ducking stool and she drowned, she was probably innocent. This is the sort of perverse outcome that this amendment would provide.

Further, it denies how technology is changing in so far as AI is concerned. In our minds, we have a spotty teenager hacking away at their computer, perhaps late into the night while playing Fortnite on the other screen. What this amendment does is give an opportunity for AI, mechanisation, and the industrialisation and automation of structured hacks on a phishing expedition—a mass insult or mass trolling to try to scrape as much as they possibly can. The public interest is in the eye of the beholder, and because there is no pure definition that is challengeable, and so one would have to go to the law or ask international lawyers what amounts to a statement of the law, we are going to get in a muddle.

I cannot support Amendment 367, not just because I think it is naïve, in so far as it is thinking about the individual at home, but because it fails to understand the way that technology is changing so rapidly—the industrialisation, AI and so forth, and the volume attacks. We cannot give a perverse incentive that allows those people with malevolent intent to get off while individuals, business and the economy, at home and abroad, are under attack.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and for returning to this very important subject. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for contributing to this short but vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for taking the time last week to meet with myself and officials to discuss this issue.

Cyber security professionals play a crucial role in protecting the UK’s digital systems. I support the intention behind this amendment; we broadly agree on the benefits of introducing a statutory defence. That is why we have been developing a limited defence to the offence of unauthorised access to computer material, provided for in Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, that will allow trusted cyber security researchers to spot and report vulnerabilities in a responsible manner.

We have made significant progress in shaping a proposal, but some details, including ensuring adequate safeguards, still need refinement. To date, we have briefed over 100 industry and expert stakeholders, including both cyber security firms and system owners, to finalise the approach. Engagement to date has revealed strong support for reform, alongside clear calls to ensure that the defence is workable for a range of cyber security researchers. We will provide a further update once that work is complete.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that the principle of a limited statutory defence risks creating a hacker’s charter. I stress that we are working with the whole industry—including, of course, the system owners—to develop a nuanced approach that is future-proofed and allows for responsible work in this area.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government intend to legislate for a statutory defence against Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act once this work has been completed and when parliamentary time allows. We are not quite there yet, so this Bill is not the right vehicle, but we are committed to delivering a solution that is proportionate and practical for both researchers and law enforcement. Like his colleague on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—did earlier, the noble Lord tempts me to somehow forecast what might be in a future King’s Speech. I cannot be that precise.

As a possible response, the noble Lord mooted the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will be a carry-over Motion. I am not going to get into the detail of that tonight, but I am very keen that we stay in communication. The noble Lord has asked some complex questions. He is going to write to me, and I am very happy to respond in kind. In light of the progress we made at the meeting we had last week, and the progress we were making on developing a proposal that has acceptance across the industry and is future-proofed and nuanced—we are, of course, very keen to continue the dialogue—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The Minister just said that he will exchange correspondence with the noble Lord. Will he make sure that that is copied to everybody who is participating in this debate?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 368 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on which he has campaigned so strongly. It addresses a crime that has become a blight on our streets: the industrialised theft of mobile devices. We must remove the profit motive from street crime. If a phone is useless the moment it is stolen, the thefts will stop. California proved it and the technology exists; the only thing missing is the will to legislate. I urge the Minister to move beyond collaboration and accept the amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with that proposal.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

It is the Government who have kept their Back-Benchers here at this time of night and kept the debate going. I am allowed to speak, am I not? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sprang up before me. But for all the Back-Benchers complaining about people debating this important issue, it was the Government’s decision to keep the debate going to this point, and some of that is to prevent a Division on the matter.

I am trying to understand—a question that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put so eloquently—why the Government are not accepting this amendment. They have given every indication that they will not. I appreciate that losing a mobile phone may be inconvenient, but the number one issue is the impact on tourism in London. It is why Sadiq Khan has painted up and down Oxford Street the words, “Don’t stand here”—because you might be attacked for your phone. It is ridiculous that, in our capital, the Mayor of London is painting these signs. It is all over the Tube as well that you might get your phone pinched. Yet the Government, for some reason, do not seem prepared to get tough with the mobile phone companies and prevent, as a former Metropolitan Commissioner has pointed out, a pretty lucrative business model which could be addressed—not just the thefts but the physical incidents that are happening, principally, though not only, in our capital—by taking forward my noble friend’s amendment.

It worries me that there is a risk of getting tribal on this, when we do not need to. Does the Minister want to intervene? I think she just said something from a sedentary position. I see she does not want to intervene. Does somebody else want to intervene? Was that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes? Does he want to intervene, with his experience of Newcastle? No, he does not want to intervene.

This is affecting not only citizens but tourists, and that has a massive impact on the attraction of our capital. The Government should be taking this issue a lot more seriously than they seem to be and trying to stop a crime that is one of the principal causes, in crime survey statistics, of people being frightened to go out and about on the streets of our capital city.

I am somewhat disappointed that this debate is happening close to midnight. I am conscious that Government Back-Benchers do not want to be here, and I can see that the Opposition Back-Benchers do not want to be here, but I do, because I care about people in our communities.

I appreciate that my noble friend will not want to test the opinion of the House tonight, but we must find a way to tackle this issue for the sake of everybody. Parliament must listen to the concerns of people across this country, and those trying to visit this country, and tackle something that has become so pernicious that it is a genuine threat to the prosperity of the many businesses that rely on people coming to this country and going out to enjoy themselves.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendment regarding cloud-based services and access restrictions for lost or stolen devices. As my noble friend said, a similar amendment to the one before us was presented in Committee, during which it was pleasing to see Cross-Bench support from noble Lords on this proposed solution to an increasing problem.

Mobile phone theft is now a high-volume and high-impact crime. It is particularly prevalent in urban areas, obviously, and can often cause distress to its victims, as well as financial loss. Rather than simply creating new offences or imposing more severe punishments, we must address the current incentives that sustain the criminal market for stolen mobile devices. As was our position in Committee, we must act to remove the profit motive that fuels this behaviour in the first instance.

Amendment 368 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson seeks to achieve that precise goal. By requiring providers to take reasonable and timely steps to block access to services once the device is verified as lost or stolen, stolen phones would no doubt be less valuable on the resale market. This would result in the substantial removal of the economic rewards that drive organised and individual phone theft. The blocking of access to cloud synchronisation and authentication services would plainly strip stolen devices of much of their value to criminals. Quite bluntly, this proposal has the potential, as we have heard from other noble Lords, to undermine the business model of those stealing phones.

The amendment would also build on important safeguards. It would require a verified notification, a mechanism for appeals or reversal in cases of error or fraud, and an obligation to notify both the National Crime Agency and local police forces, thereby strengthening intelligence. Of course we must recognise that any operational mandate of this kind must be technically feasible and proportionate—the Secretary of State must therefore set appropriate standards and timelines through regulation—but the principle behind my noble friend’s amendment is vital. If smartphones lose value as criminal commodities, the incentive to steal them will be reduced. We on these Benches give this amendment our fullest support, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Once again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling this amendment. I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this Government take mobile phone theft seriously. That is why we have measures in the Bill to take it seriously, and why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a mobile phone summit for the first time last year. That is also why we encouraged the Met to undertake its conference next week on mobile phone theft.

That is also why, in figures I can give to the noble Baroness, over the past year—the first year of this Labour Government—mobile phone thefts in London have fallen by 10,000, a reduction of 12.3% from the previous Government’s performance. It is a real and important issue. We are trying to tackle it and are improving on the performance from the time when she was Deputy Prime Minister. I just leave that with her to have a think about that, even at this late hour.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

So will the Minister accept my noble friend’s amendment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. I accept the principle of the work the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is bringing forward, but I do not accept it in the context that the noble Baroness put it: that we are doing nothing. We are doing quite a lot. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which is the important thing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I did not say that the Minister was doing nothing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness did, actually. She said that nothing was happening under this Government. Every Member on this side of the House heard her say that.

The hour is late so I will go to the nub of the issue, which is the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Law enforcement partners—the police and the Home Office—are taking robust action to drive down instances of mobile phone theft. We have delivered the most comprehensive, intelligence-led response to mobile phone theft, and Operation Reckoning, supported by the Home Office through the Metropolitan Police Service, is tracking down criminal gangs on this issue, going to the point the noble Baroness did not mention.

I agree that we need to take action to make sure the companies that design these devices provide services, play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing, which was the very point the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Law enforcement partners—all of us in the law enforcement sector—are currently working in collaboration with technology companies and partners, including phone manufacturers, to look at the technical solutions, which, I must say to the noble Baroness, is something that the previous Government did not do. The Home Office is supporting this important work, and I thank everybody involved for their constructive engagement.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, that it is our preferred approach to allow this collaborative work between mobile phone manufacturers, mobile phone operators, law enforcement partners and the Home Office to continue, so that we find a positive solution to this problem, rather than accepting the amendment before us today and mandating a specific, untested solution through legislation. It does not mean that we will not do this—we want to try to do it—but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that works, is sustainable and is in partnership with the mobile phone authorities. The approach we are taking will reduce the risk of legislation not achieving the desired output.

I want to be clear to the noble Lord that we are working on that now. If it does not work, and if we find blockages and we do not make progress, we reserve the right to look at any and all options. At the moment I cannot accept his amendment, because it would mandate us to do something, but we are already trying to work on this to make sure that what we do works. We are doing that in partnership with all those authorities. At the same time, we are doing practical stuff by tracking down people and putting more police on the beat, including the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are introducing over the next few years. We are also ensuring that we take action through the Bill on tracking mobile phones and giving police superintendents more action. That is a positive programme of action. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask my noble friends to vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes, I will. I do not want the noble Baroness opposite heckling. She has not been here for most of the debate. If she does not want to take part in an erudite, interesting debate on this issue, she could probably go elsewhere.

This is an important issue about people. The reason I got involved in this is because—as you do—I got into a discussion with a taxi driver. The taxi driver told me about picking up an American tourist, who was in floods of tears because her dream trip to London had been utterly ruined by phone theft. She was bereft and distraught. I then began to look at the excellent work that the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee had done. The fact of the matter is that there is no substance to the Minister’s assertion that the technical solutions are misplaced, not in place or not ready—they are. A number of the tech companies, such as Samsung and Google, have confirmed to the Select Committee that they are in place and that there is a technical solution to it.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My noble friend is making a valid point. The reason I made the point I did earlier is because I understand that the Back-Benchers are irritated at being here at this time of night debating such an important issue.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Well, that seems to be the case. My concern is that we hear about collaboration, but here is a tool that the Government can readily deploy, with the backing of Parliament, in order to strengthen their hand, and not wait for more time. I am conscious that all sides of the House want this to end. However, I have to say that the attitude so far has been that it is inconvenient to discuss this important matter.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I concur with the spirit of my noble friend’s observation.

I have given the Minister plaudits in the past for doing a very difficult job on marshalling the Bill through the House—his diligence, his hard work, his commitment to the Bill. We support many of the aspects of the Bill, and we believe his heart is basically in the right place. What frustrates us—he must understand this—is seeing that his own senior Back-Bencher, who chairs a Select Committee, is robustly critical of a senior politician such as the Home Secretary for her inaction, while bringing forward technical solutions in a non-partisan way with a multi-party Select Committee. I find it quite difficult to understand why the Government should not accept it, because, at the end of the day, the Government would get the credit from the people of this country for doing that.

However, I accept that the Minister feels constrained. I take him at his word that he will continue a proper, thorough dialogue with the tech companies, based on empirical data and facts, and talk to senior police officers—people who know about building out crime and designing out crime. I hope that a future Bill will be tabled and that the Government will feel confident enough to include a clause incorporating what we have discussed.

We are discussing this at 11.50 pm because some earlier amendments were debated at significantly greater length than we expected. I would have pressed this to a vote but, notwithstanding everything that has been said, I hope that the Minister will reconsider and talk to his colleagues. This is a very good proposal. It is not a Tory proposal or a Labour proposal, but a proposal that will help people. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, it will do a lot for tourism and put us where we ought to be: as a pre-eminent technological superpower, doing something to change things for the better.

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am obliged. Assisted dying feels quite pacific in comparison with the debate we have just had. This is my amendment, which I do not intend to press. It is the product of discussions with the BMA. It was tabled in Committee in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It was withdrawn in Committee because the Isle of Man Government, who have passed a Bill to deal with assisted dying, said they did not want it to be tabled before there had been discussions with them. There have now been discussions between the BMA and the Isle of Man Government and they are content for it to be tabled.

This amendment seeks to provide protections for doctors with patients who live in the Isle of Man or Jersey, where assisted dying Bills have been passed but have not yet received Royal Assent. It is common, for example, for some people resident in the Isle of Man to have doctors in the north-west of England. Those doctors may well give a diagnosis or a prognosis in writing, which might then be used in an assisted dying process in accordance with the laws in those two other jurisdictions. Amendment 426A says that if a doctor does such a thing and they are participating in a process which is strictly in accordance with the law

“in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies”,

And, obviously, Scotland voted against assisted dying yesterday, but the principle is that they will not be breaking the law in this country—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Can I finish my explanation, then hear from the Minister and then take it from there? I have had a very useful discussion with the Minister, who said that the Government took the view that the amendment was premature before Royal Assent in relation to the two jurisdictions, and I accept that. She said that once Royal Assent was given, the Government would consult with Jersey and the Isle of Man Governments and other relevant parties about what the Government would then do. She gave no commitment as to what the Government would do, but I am content with that approach. There will obviously be some degree of urgency, depending on how long it will take for the other jurisdictions to introduce assisted dying, but if the Minister were to confirm that that was the position, and that is what she explained to me, I would be content with that explanation.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I did not quite hear at the start. Can I just confirm that this amendment was not tabled at the request of the Isle of Man Government?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is correct. It was tabled after discussions between the BMA, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and me, and it was withdrawn because the Isle of Man Government wanted more consultation.