Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we can all get all Members who are standing in if their speeches are kept short, sharp and to the point. We will hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter, then we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this is a day of disappointment. I am keenly aware of those who viewed this law as the solution to their plight, but also of those for whom the clear failure of proper provision of palliative services will not be solved any time soon and for those living with disabilities or with children with disabilities who struggle to access healthcare today. I also recognise that there is disappointment for many in their perception of their Parliament. I have, in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating as I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and a government response, but in my 15 years, this is not the best. I have said numerous times in Committee that the Private Member’s Bill process is being asked to replace pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that, so there is no surprise that huge concerns remain.

I will speak briefly of just two examples—it was going to be three, but I am mindful of time—that could have been dealt with if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny. First, the consultative palliative care expert Jamilla Hussain said in the Guardian on 18 May 2025:

“I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred”.


This led me to think that children could be that next of the kin who would be the first informed and then to the question of children as interpreters, so I tabled amendments in that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media, but it was not, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, a “bureaucratic” amendment. It was not “procedural obstruction”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, said. It was an important amendment, and it was not until the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that Parliament first heard from the Children’s Commissioners about the impact on children, although outside the scope of the Bill, of the societal change we were going to introduce.

My second instance, or expert, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings, and I am grateful for them, particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. However, when the discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principle that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity. You can be detained repeatedly under the Mental Health Act but still have capacity. It was clear to me when leaving that meeting that we had gone from nuanced detail to basic principle and that we needed to have a look at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and this Bill before we started.

I will conclude where I began, with the different views of the world—which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate. But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community—whether that is geographical, in the north-east, or within a faith community. As other noble Lords have outlined, I think there is disappointment among some people of faith that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign—although, I note, never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings.

It is interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford, quoted an unusual source in Westminster Hall in June last year. He said:

“Polly Toynbee was spot on when she wrote in The Guardian: ‘Every day in Parliament, fundamentally different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes’”.


Atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judaeo-Christian, liberal and now neoliberal viewpoints are all welcome. I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise.

I have two final practical points. Away from your Lordships’ House, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to have a debate on the principle of this Bill on “Intelligence Squared”. If this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Baroness, I would love to see her on a platform of that scale to discuss her views and intellectually engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal, democratic society.

My second point is to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the Private Member’s Bill process has not served us well. I am sad to see the polarisation and the polemic nature of many of our debates. I hope we can find a way to look at what has happened with this Bill to prevent it happening ever again.

My final point is to do generally with the law. I hear the comments from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, but for the parents of disabled children, we have not spoken sufficiently of whether the law will protect their children when they are gone.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have now been debating this issue for just short of four and a half hours. It is my intention to bring proceedings to a close at around 3 pm. Both the Government and Opposition Front Benches have indicated to me that they wish to make contributions, so after the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, we should be looking to bring proceedings to a close. Maybe we will have one more speech after her—but then we want to hear from the Front Benches. Then we need to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer before adjourning around 3 pm.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

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

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the process. Time in Committee is obviously linked to the progress of meetings, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for offering a one-on-one meeting on one aspect of the Bill.

However, the usual manner in Committee, as I have understood it from substantive Bills—usually government Bills—is to have themed meetings with quite a large number of Peers to discuss issues. There may be around 10, but I would say that there are more than 10 issues here. That is concentrated down on Report. If the noble and learned Lord could adopt that process, it would limit the time in Committee.

I might also remind the noble and learned Lord of his evidence to the Select Committee when I raised the issue of advertising. If noble Lords look at Clause 43, they would think that advertising was still on printed pieces of paper. We know that that is not the case but, due to the lack of government write-round on a Private Member’s Bill, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which has responsibility for the Online Safety Act, has no idea what the impact of that clause will be on that Act or on online advertising. In response to my questions, the noble and learned Lord accepted that he needs to come back with more detail on advertising.

I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.

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

May I ask noble Lords to focus more clearly on the Motion in front of us and not get into discussing the Bill? What is before us is very narrow and could be disposed of quite quickly if we focus on that.

Housing: New Homes

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. What are the Government going to do about the crisis of planning permissions being granted but not a brick being laid? At the last check, there were well over 250,000 applications with nothing happening on those sites. If you have land and have received planning permission to build homes, but you do not take action, surely the Government should do something. If nothing has happened in 12 months, surely the Government should find somebody to build houses on these big sites.

[Baroness Berridge]

The noble Lord is correct that, once planning permission is granted—which can take about two years—it is in everyone’s interests, including the developer and the local community, that the site is built on. Last year, we saw more than 375,000 grants of planning permission. The noble Lord is aware that in 2018 Sir Oliver Letwin was asked to review whether there was a hold-up of what is called the build-out rate. His main conclusion was about the absorption rate of bringing large numbers of units into the local market. He recommended that we diversify the type of units on each site, so they can be put on the market in smaller groups, appeal more widely and not affect the market price.

Hate Crime: Anti-Semitism

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the Government abhor all hate crimes committed on the basis of religion or of lack of religious belief. In relation to the legislative framework in this area, I am pleased to tell the House that, due to the of prevalence of these offences online, the Law Commission is currently looking at the Malicious Communications Act and will shortly be announcing a consultation on hate crime legislation to see whether it sufficiently covers all religious groups. There are peculiarities in relation to the legislation when a religious group is also a racial group.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I agree with others in this House that anti-Semitism is an evil prejudice and that we must do everything to drive it out. Will the Minister agree to speak to the Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith to look at the possibility of changing the nomination process for all public elections, to require candidates to confirm their opposition to anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all other race and hate crimes, as well as changing our code of conduct in this House? If anyone falls short of their commitments, swift action can be taken by the relevant authorities, up to and including expulsion from the relevant House, Parliament, Assembly or local authority.

[Baroness Berridge]

I thank the noble Lord for his suggestions. In relation to the Cabinet Office, I am sure that officials are listening to today’s debate and will act upon it. The code of conduct is for the authorities here, but the noble Lord will be aware that the APPG has been asking all MPs to sign the declaration; 641 out of 643 have signed the definition. Unfortunately, two sitting MPs and seven Sinn Féin MPs—who do not take up their places—have not signed.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 219CA. This lengthy amendment, which at the outset I accept will need recrafting on Report, seeks to deal with a simple problem that has cropped up in our law. It has done so accidentally, I think, but if not sorted out it will cause injustice. Although it is late, a short description of the law and the problem is necessary by way of background.

Successive Governments have sought to tackle forced marriage, beginning with the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 and with further criminalisation in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. To make these remedies effective, the law incorporated—for the first time, I believe—a definition of marriage that included marriages that were not at that time valid under UK law. I quote from the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on the definition of “marriage”. It states that,

“‘marriage’ means any religious or civil ceremony … recognised by the customs of the parties to it, or the laws of any country in which it is carried out, as constituting a binding agreement, whether or not it would be legally binding according to the law of England and Wales”.

So a relationship that UK law does not currently define as marriage can now, for very good reason, count in our criminal courts and some of our civil courts, for forced marriage purposes, as a marriage. However, this leaves a gap.

A party to a forced marriage that is not valid under UK law cannot use that conviction as evidence of the marriage in the family courts to gain financial remedies. If you have entered into a marriage under duress—a forced marriage that is valid under UK law—that can be the subject of a crime or a civil protection order. You can then, because it is valid under UK law, go to the family courts and say, “I was forced into this marriage under duress”. It is then voidable and it can be annulled. This opens the door to financial relief and the distribution of the matrimonial property.

If under duress in our law you are forced into a religious marriage, it is valid for the purposes of our law in the criminal courts for a criminal offence under the civil protection forced marriage regime, but you are not then entitled to then take that conviction to the Family Court to obtain matrimonial remedy. This is a very different situation from the marriages valid under UK law, as I have outlined, for which you can get an annulment or, of course, a divorce. So if our law has accepted this small number of relationships as marriage for the purpose of the law on forced marriage, why can they not be used for other purposes, such as gaining financial remedy? Not allowing them to be used in this way is a real injustice to those victims of forced marriage who come forward to the Crown Courts but are left with the doors of the Family Courts shut to them in terms of matrimonial property.

I am not seeking for the law to see this small number of relationships as marriages for all purposes or to foist this on a person who, even after there is a conviction for forced marriage, wishes it to be viewed for all other purposes as the religious marriage it was but under duress. Surely, however, that person, in a forced marriage under duress that was a religious marriage, should have a choice—leave it as a religious marriage or take the conviction and be allowed to claim financial remedy under the Matrimonial Courts Act and other such remedies as he or she may on occasion need.

Many of those who have spoken to me on this issue are practising barristers and solicitors. There are many women who, some practitioners believe, do not come forward after years in a forced marriage that is valid only as a religious marriage under our law, as they know that our law leaves them without means to claim matrimonial property. They know they risk the only recourse being welfare benefits, particularly if their children are now adults and they have no claim for maintenance based on caring for the children. Their view is that many of these women would come forward to the Crown Court but are reluctant to do so because they do not want to leave themselves financially vulnerable and unable to access financial remedies. We have an anomaly created by the entry of a different definition of marriage into our law.

Surely it would be just for these people and for the taxpayer to allow someone who is the victim of a forced marriage of this nature to claim, if they wish, the matrimonial property as well. By analogy, we do not retry domestic violence convictions in our Family Courts after the Crown Courts convict a husband or wife. The conviction is accepted as evidence and used by the Family Courts. Why can a forced marriage conviction not also be used in such a simple procedural way to unlock the discretion to redistribute the property and bring justice and consistency in this regard across all our courts—civil, family and criminal?

I hope that my noble friend the Minister might have time to meet with the interested groups that are concerned about this problem in our law. I raised this matter at the time with the anti-social behaviour Bill, and it has come back because there are concerns around the gap we have left for victims of forced marriages that are religious marriages which are not fully accepted under our law. The amendment is a pre-emptive strike to try to avoid this injustice happening and potentially encourage a larger number of women to come forward because they will not risk their property rights, and they will be able to claim the matrimonial property as well as get a conviction in the Crown Court. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, told the Committee, this clause confers lifelong anonymity on the victims of forced marriage in England and Wales. The first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, extends that provision to cover Northern Ireland as well. I understand that this is at the request of the Justice Department in Northern Ireland. That is welcome, and we on these Benches support these amendments. Amendment 215 is the main amendment, while Amendments 237 and 241 are consequential and would bring the provision into effect.

Amendment 219CA is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. She makes a powerful case to right an injustice that leaves the victim unable to seek redress. That is not right, and the Government should come forward to correct this. I will be interested to hear what the Minister will say in her response to this amendment. She made a persuasive argument; I hope that we will get a positive response from the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and that the Government can deal with it, either now or on Report.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Berridge

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, although my noble friend Lady Browning states that she is not a lawyer, I think that she has outlined to your Lordships’ House in comprehensive detail the changes that are needed to ensure that this amendment, which was made in the other place, does not cause conflict with existing legislation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues, just as we saw with the previous group, concerning the possession of an offensive weapon or a bladed article.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Berridge. They make some very important points but I am not convinced by their arguments that what they seek is necessary. As I said previously, knife crime can have a devastating effect, not only on the person who is killed or seriously injured but on the life of the offender. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, told the House that he had to speak to many families whose loved ones had been murdered in such circumstances and saw at first hand the devastating effects of that. We have to get the balance right. For this group of amendments, my previous suggestion stands: we need to look at this whole area and review it after a couple of years. If the Government come back then and look at how the whole Act is operating, that is the best way forward.

I will listen very carefully to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, especially with respect to increasing the scope to include people convicted of an offence under various military and Armed Forces Acts. Clearly the noble Baronesses have considered this very carefully. However, I am not convinced that to put in the Bill an amendment that a court must have regard to the duty under Section 44 is necessary. I am sure the Minister will respond to that as well.