Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
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.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Coffey

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am sad to add to the list of requests to the Chief Whip. I was saddened to hear the allegation on the “Today” programme that those opposing the Bill are just a random group of religiously motivated people. It is not how I have ever been treated as a Christian in this House.

That came on the back of questioning, covered by parliamentary privilege, of the representative of the British Association of Social Workers. The representative was chosen by the professional body to come to us. He faced questioning from one of the members of our Select Committee, who basically said to him— I summarise—“Do you have a right to put your views on others, as a vicar?” In any other forum, that would have been a breach of the Equality Act, had there not been parliamentary privilege. Can the Chief Whip look at the Code of Conduct to see whether these lazy allegations—that, somehow, religiously motivated people might also just be ignorant—should not be made on the “Today” programme or in the questioning of witnesses in a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I suggest to the Chief Whip that, in addition to the clerks’ seminar, noble Lords might want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. His Private Member’s Bill did not proceed in this House, so he used the Parliament Act, or started the process that would trigger the Parliament Act if necessary. Therefore, I think he can give everybody some practical experience, alongside the theoretical insight from our good clerks.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I understand where my noble friend is going with that. I intend to come back to some aspects of this when we get into informed consent because I was somewhat struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, about declining to give treatment because he wanted people to, in effect, accept that they were dying—I think that is what he said, although I had better go back and check that because I do not want to misquote him. I have seen that myself; I saw it with my mother when doctors just had not treated her, and then when it came to it, when it was near the end, we had to fight to avoid even having a DNR on the ambulance so that she could die at home in a place of her choice. That is true patient autonomy—I am not trying to override that.

In terms of thinking through some of what the noble Lord has put forward in his propositions, others have already reflected on the concerns about working days and whether that is practical. I would be grateful to hear from both the sponsor and the Ministers about what assessment they have made of these amendments. I am also concerned about proposed new subsection (2)(g) in Amendment 771, about providing

“publicly available information on assisted dying”.

How does that vary from what is considered advertising, which is explicitly ruled out in other parts of the Bill?

The key point of my amendments links to this almost becoming its own service within the NHS. Various clauses start to remove powers from the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. This service would start to appoint the panels, and at the moment it is taking up all the training, licensing and all those different things. It is my understanding that this does not happen in the NHS today. What we actually get, and what I propose with my amendments, is that, for a start, we have a separate regulator through the Care Quality Commission, and that the General Medical Council undertakes the roles that it does for other parts of what happens in the NHS today. If the noble Lord, Lord Birt, brings this back on Report then I hope he will think more carefully about how to make this practicable, because I hope the Minister will say it is simply not operable, even if well-intentioned in what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has just started talking about the East End of London. It is important that noble Lords consider carefully not just the evidence that has been given to this House but evidence outside about the real concerns of people from BAME communities. It is evident that people in those communities seem particularly worried about this, and that has been communicated directly to this House through witnesses. Instead of not trusting the NHS as it is today to give treatment, imagine, as you go in and are unsure, your already overworked GP saying, “Here you go; here’s some information. Someone can hold your hand”. I worry that too many people would stay away from the NHS when they desperately needed treatment in other aspects of their lives, whether in addressing prostate cancer or the other rare cancers that we debated in the Chamber last week.

I remind noble Lords—I appreciate that this is probably the third time I have said this—that for me this comes back to the practical experience of when the NHS was left to deal with end-of-life care in certain ways. The Liverpool care pathway was so horrific that I cannot in any way see how it could be controlled if we were to adopt the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. We saw it go badly wrong, and I am pleased that Ministers eventually intervened. It took time, but it did happen.

On these regulations and other aspects of running this service, if we are going to have it, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst that it should be more of an MoJ focus. Inevitably, it has become a big health focus. It is not clear, from what noble Lords have set out in their proposals, how this interacts with the whole Wales situation. The Bill’s sponsors have, I think, about 12 officials from the Department of Health and Social Care working on the Bill, which is three or four times the number at the MoJ, so there should be some understanding of how this will work. I genuinely hope that the Minister will start to share that, so that this House can make informed choices as we consider such a significant change in what could be the future of our NHS.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, for answering much of what would have been in my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. In my 15 years in your Lordships’ House, it has been the usual practice to give way, but I recognise that noble Lords have the prerogative not to accept an intervention. But I find it surprising—and I have never known it before—that the noble Lord is now no longer in his place. That is not in accordance with the advice that the Chief Whip gave this morning that we should treat each other in this House with respect.

The only additional point I make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who clearly did amazing work on the creation of life—it was on the television as I grew up—and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who talked about the pathway that midwives give for the safe delivery of that created life, is that it is entirely different to talk about a situation where the state pays for and facilitates lethal drugs to enable a citizen to end their own life.

Looking at the amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord just referred to a civil suit. If I remember correctly, from the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, this Bill fundamentally changes the availability of civil remedies in tort, with the additional criteria that the practitioner is protected as long as they are acting in good faith. I merely raise that for the noble and learned Lord so that the record is correct.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

May I see whether the noble and learned Lord can give me an answer on the idea of having the principles in the GMC guidance? They have come in only as a result of the Montgomery ruling in the court.