King’s Speech

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, in my response to the gracious Speech, I shall focus on what is missing. Soon, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will be missing. The noble Lord joined your Lordships’ House shortly before I did and was so gracious as I enthusiastically presented myself in front of him, grateful that I had used his books when I learnt at A-level. He laughed and invited me for tea, and shared his wit and wisdom with me, for which I remain very grateful.

In his valedictory speech, the noble Lord also made good on the missing mention of the constitution in today’s debate. The Representation of the People Bill says it will meet

“an evolving and sophisticated threat”,

but it seems to me to be too little, too late. Measures are welcome on political donations, but the ecosphere of influence is well beyond traditional political party donations. Social media, think tanks, higher education and the lack of supervision of companies limited by guarantee are worthy of investigation and legislation. These are the influence operations which the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred to.

Missing is serious consideration of the potential risks of not having a written constitution. There remains no limit to the number of Members of your Lordships’ House that a Prime Minister could request a monarch to create. The sensible amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the last Session were ignored, and I hope that such an amendment preventing any Government or coalition Government having an overall majority in your Lordships’ House will be within the scope of the removal of peerages Bill.

Yes, your Lordships’ House will face every few weeks a question on when His Majesty’s Government are going to introduce humanist wedding ceremonies in England, as there is a missing “marriage Bill”. The Law Commission report was issued in July 2024, and still, four years later, I believe we are only at the stage of waiting for a White Paper. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the timetable for that legislation. Without this, people—mainly women—who marry in a religious ceremony which is not recognised in UK law suffer a grave injustice. This leaves—usually—women with the inadequate remedies of breakdown of a cohabiting relationship, or informal dispute resolution, often called a sharia council. The last review of these was in 2018 and needs updating. Therefore, I ask His Majesty’s Government to get ahead of the rumours and anecdotes and provide clear evidence to allay or confirm concerns. The last review, by Mona Siddiqui, could be supplemented by the recently retired president of the Family Division.

Missing from the modernisation of courts Bill is a legal definition of the duty or covenant that is owed to jurors. Modern evidence methods have changed their experience. Rapes are usually filmed, or skulls can be 3D printed and handed around the jury to show exactly where the machete went in. Jurors are compelled to be there, cut off from their usual support relationships, as they cannot speak of what they are hearing, and they are the only people in the courtroom who have no legal right to support. Court staff, lawyers and even judges now have support mechanisms in place. While I welcome the recent pilot project, having met many jurors who have been made seriously ill by jury service, I know that the matter does not have the urgency that is needed. I fear His Majesty’s Government will only act once there is a regulation 28 recommendation from a coroner. To avoid that risk, a duty should be on the statute book.

Depriving a large number of people of jury trials is not court modernisation. That is a misnomer. I remember the valedictory speech of another hero of mine, Lord Mackay, who mentioned the seriousness of appointing judges to the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Their life could be on the line. While that is a risk of a different magnitude, the barristers who are also part-time judges raise legitimate concerns around their safety if they make determinations of guilt or innocence in these more serious cases.

It looks like the Committee stage of various Bills will be very busy, helping to fill in so much of what is missing.