Southport Inquiry

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.

We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, much that is valuable and important has been said by many in this Chamber this afternoon, particularly about the risks of criminal law creeping too far into the conduct of everyday life—the law should not be a code of conduct—and the problems of unenforceability when law becomes overcomplex. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made an important suggestion, which I hope is debated in Committee.

I will speak to Clause 191, which has profound implications for the lives of some children. Those in favour in the Commons spoke of a recent increase in investigations and prosecution. They spoke of women abused and pressured into abortions, and of unreasonable behaviour by the police and the CPS. They used harrowing cases to make their arguments. A number argued that abortion should be considered only as a healthcare matter. But it is not hard to unpick these arguments, and to see on what shaky foundations this decision was taken.

It is blindingly clear that abortion is a profoundly difficult issue, because the rights attaching to two different lives conflict: this is why it figures in criminal law. I do not stand with those who argue for absolute priorities in either direction, but I have worked for years in areas where adults and children’s rights unavoidably conflict. I know how easy it is for campaigners to be blinded by such conflict of rights by their perceptions of their own rightness. This is how some can see giving women an unqualified right to kill their own children—even the day before birth—as merely a progressive modernisation of the law.

For abortion, there is an uncomfortable asymmetry: unlike their mothers, unborn children are helpless and voiceless. We should therefore reject the argument that abortion should be considered purely as a healthcare matter. Of course women’s healthcare matters, but to make healthcare the only consideration is to deny a vast and important ethical debate. Both lives in question matter very much. Clinicians and support services naturally want to be kind to the woman in front of them, to whom they owe responsibilities, and of course it is easier for professionals if the law removes any possibility of repercussions for them from a self-induced late abortion.

Furthermore, decriminalisation, even in the interests of kindness, is not always a social good. To give one example, Oregon has had to reverse its disastrous policy of decriminalising low-level drug possession and usage.

Next, if there are cases of police or CPS overreach or malpractice, primary legislation is not the right way to correct that. It is shocking when someone proves to have been wrongly convicted, but do a few cases of wrongful conviction justify decriminalising rape, for example, lest any man ever be unfairly accused and investigated?

Finally, Parliament should not succumb to emotional blackmail. The old saying is that hard cases make bad law. Domestic violence charities see dreadful cases, and abused women deserve kindness and consideration, but not all women are angels without agency. There are women who are not abused, but who neglect and maltreat their own children—ask any social worker. There is clear moral hazard here. For example, a woman who forms a new relationship mid-pregnancy may be tempted to eliminate the baby that she thinks could be an impediment to that relationship. As far as I know, despite the red flag of increased investigations in recent years, no systematic review has looked at whether telemedicine for abortion is having an undesirable consequence of enabling greater numbers of women to conceal their stage of pregnancy so as to attempt late abortions.

For all these reasons, I believe that noble Lords should be concerned about this clause, the fact that it was inserted without any national consultation showing a clear balance of public opinion in support, and that it was not informed by a full review of the impact of permitting abortions by telemedicine. I will therefore be proposing amendments to delay its implementation until such a review and consultation have taken place.