Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The noble Lord says that there is a profound difference. However, there are circumstances—maybe others are aware—where parents lose a very young child in the home to sudden infant death syndrome. In certain of those circumstances, the police have to come through the door. There is no profound difference there: unfortunately, we need to investigate sensitive things, and that is not a reason to not change the law.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I entirely understand and accept that the police will investigate many alleged possible offences in highly sensitive circumstances, but the issue that arises for Parliament, and your Lordships’ House in particular today, is whether we should adopt special criteria where the sensitivity and the distress relate to a woman who has recently lost the child that she is carrying. It is very difficult, in my view—I am obviously not an expert on this; women in the Committee will have a stronger view than I do—but I can understand the real, particular and damaging concern that arises where a woman who has carried her child for however many months loses that child and is then the subject of a criminal investigation. It is difficult to imagine anything that is more distressing to the woman concerned in those circumstances. The Committee therefore has to take a view on this. My current view—

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, the debates today are of tremendous importance and, I think, of comparable difficulty to the painful debate about assisted dying, though that other Bill has rather overshadowed this clause. However, I think, in effect, that what we are talking about here does have some of the characteristics of a Trojan horse. It is a bit like a Private Member’s Bill hidden inside a government Bill. We have got just one day to consider the clause and to try to put some sensible restrictions and safeguards on what is clearly a risky proposal. I think the comments of many noble Lords have shown this.

I spent seven years responsible for Ofsted’s inspections of social services for children, and I saw a lot of the very worst of what parents, both male and female, will do to their children. On the Bill on that subject, debates have often been dominated by justified concerns for children’s welfare and safety, yet this clause goes the other way in explicitly legitimising the ultimate harm of killing a viable child if it is done by the mother, even where there is clear dishonesty or other wrongdoing by the mother and no mitigating circumstances whatever. I am not sure that that is a position that the majority of the public will ever see as progressive, inevitable or the way that the country should go.

It is, as various people have pointed out, a de facto removal of the term limit on abortion. With telemedicine coupled with self-declaration, what we have is something that is, I believe, really quite significantly unsafe. We simply do not have either the data or the monitoring systems to have the level of confidence that we should. By the way, I think we know that self-declaration and trust is not working as well as had been hoped in quite a number of Covid-era programmes where decisions are made remotely off the back of self-declaration. Some of the country’s woes come down to needing to find the political courage to say so and deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

Yes, from the people who provide the abortions. As I say, I am very happy to share that information with the noble Baroness.

Telemedicine is a choice—

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am aware of the time, but can the noble Baroness, in the information she provides, please comment on the November 2023 government review, which says that the complication rate is higher when you are over 20 weeks’ gestation?

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I am specifically referring to telemedicine here, which is provided under 10 weeks. That is what I am talking about when I refer to complication rates. I have absolutely already acknowledged that later medical abortions have a higher rate of complications. That is why telemedicine is a good thing, because it brings the abortions earlier. As we heard, over half now are under seven weeks’ gestation.

I am running out of time, so I will stop there on telemedicine, but maintaining the option of telemedicine up to 10 weeks’ gestation for women who want it is safe, effective and helps ensure that women who have made the decision to have an abortion can access it as early as possible.

Government Resilience Action Plan

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the role of special constables and all volunteers in our community and the work that they do to keep us safe on a regular basis. Noble Lords will have heard me talk many times from this Dispatch Box about our security and police forces, who run towards danger to protect the rest of us. We owe them always a huge debt of gratitude. With regard to the specific point the noble Lord raises, I beg his indulgence. I will talk to the department about his suggestion and will revert to him.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, having been in the Education Department during the pandemic, I know that the measures we took there unfortunately engendered a lot of anxiety and additional fear among a young population. Can the Minister outline how we will embed this with young people without causing them fear? She mentions having provisions at home, but how do we make it a norm for young people to have something called a “go bag”, whether they are at university or at home? Will the Government monitor the effect on young people of the message that will go out in September, as I presume that the mobile phone coverage includes young people now?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She will be aware that we are currently undertaking a national curriculum review. Some of what we have discussed today, including the education point raised by the noble Earl, will be touched on as part of that review. We are very clear that teaching about emergencies in an age-appropriate way extends to not overstating risks and helping pupils contextualise what they learn without causing harm. We think that schools should decide how best to plan for emergencies and talk to their pupils appropriately. The Department for Education provides guidance to support schools in doing this.

Fire Safety

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. The position at the moment is that nothing essential has been turned down—I checked that with officials today. Clearly, an inquiry and a review of building safety regulation and fire safety are ongoing. It would make a material difference if one of those were to come forward with something that is essential forthwith. We will look at that situation. I do not think that is an unfair response. It is something that could happen and, clearly, in the light of changed circumstances we would have to look at that anew.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, rightly, the focus has been on housing associations and social housing generally but will my noble friend the Minister assure the House that with regard to high-rise buildings that are either in shared ownership or actually in private ownership, the Secretary of State has written to those developers to check that there are not safety concerns in those blocks? Some of the fires that we have seen in other countries have been in privately owned dwellings.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an entirely fair point. I think that has been the subject of a letter from my right honourable friend. I will double-check that, if I may, to ensure that that is the case, and if it is not we will certainly need to pick it up.

Grenfell Tower: Rehousing Update

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, in the Prime Minister’s Statement on 22 June, she first outlined that the accommodation will be on the same terms as the original accommodation, and we have seen a definition of that today. Unfortunately, I understood “same terms” to be in the personal injury lawyer sense, which is to put the person back into the position they would have been in had none of this happened. People who have been placed in accommodation with more bedrooms should be in the same position—having the same money still in their pocket—as if they were in the house they had been in. Can my noble friend the Minister find a way to short-circuit these processes, as we have done for prosecutions for illegal subletting? People should not have to get discretionary housing payments when they should basically be in the same position as if the fire had never happened. There must be a way to achieve that and get that justice for them, including of course if they have moved further away and they have extra transport costs to get to work. All of that has to be taken into account and we need a speedy, efficient way that is not in bureaucracy and discretion to achieve that as soon as possible.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I quote again from the Statement. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that,

“everyone whose home was destroyed by the fire will be guaranteed a new home on the same terms as the one they lost”.

That is what we are intending to do. Beyond that, if the home that they go to is larger than the one they were in previously, they will not be charged extra, as I understand it; I was going through this this morning in the department.