Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

The British Medical Association is a trade union, not a royal college.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I am very sorry—I have to carry on or I am going to run out of time. This is Report and I am going to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I am sorry; I am going to keep going.

This amendment would ensure that women are offered the best possible care at in-person appointments, where medical history can be discussed with a woman.

Amendment 425 is not about whether we are pro-life or pro-choice; it is about safeguarding women. Polling last summer found that two-thirds of women support the return of in-person appointments; a mere 4% support the status quo. Abortion providers provided abortion services before the pandemic, with no major problems for access. I urge colleagues to support Amendment 425, which is a far more proportionate response to the handful of court cases that have occurred in recent years than that offered by Clause 208, which makes matters worse and removes legal protections for unborn babies up to birth. Amendment 425 would not reduce access to abortion for women, but it would ensure that their health needs are properly catered for.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I am the chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I hope that the noble Baroness who has just spoken will accept that sometimes the expertise of people who are directly involved on a daily basis with the treatment of women seeking an abortion is really rather important. I found it distressing when the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, refused to acknowledge that, in fact, many representatives of the medical profession strongly adhere to what lies behind Clause 208. I strongly support that clause because it seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales will no longer be subject to long investigations and criminal charges, which are very often exceedingly distressing.

I also support Amendment 423A to stop ongoing investigations and Amendment 426B to grant historical pardons to women. However, I will focus my comments today on the safety of the telemedicine service for early medical abortion and, in particular, my opposition to Amendment 425, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, just spoke to.

There have been extraordinary suggestions that the creation of the telemedicine service is the reason for the increase in criminal investigations. This is not true. There were cases of women being sent to prison before the telemedicine pathway was even created. Since the vote in the House of Commons last year, several women have been investigated, including a woman who experienced a miscarriage when she was 17 weeks pregnant. Surely that is something we should seek to avoid.

I turn to a landmark study of more than 50,000 abortions in England and Wales, which concluded that telemedical abortion is effective, safe and improves access to care. Waiting times fell, the mean gestational age of treatment declined and effectiveness increased, with 98.8% of abortions successfully completed after medication. The scare stories we have just heard are exceedingly rare and we should not take them as a reason for rejecting the telemedical service that exists.

Safety is not only about clinical outcomes; it is also about safeguarding. Women accessing early medical abortion through a licensed provider will speak to a doctor, a nurse or a midwife who follows established safeguarding protocols, asking an agreed list of questions to verify what the woman seeking an abortion has said. In fact, abortion providers operate within one of the most tightly regulated areas of medicine. Where concerns arise, patients are always brought face to face to receive care by that method. Indeed, about 50% have a face-to-face appointment when they seek a telemedical abortion and the drugs that are concerned.

It is important to note that telemedicine has not removed face-to-face care. If a woman chooses to attend a clinic or hospital, she is able to do so. Telemedicine has simply broadened choice for women, and that is something we should also take very seriously as a huge benefit. We must consider what would happen if the option for telemedicine—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Could I further clarify and ask a question? Is it not true that if any doctor or nurse is doubtful when telemedicine is happening, they will ask that person to come in to be seen?

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

That is absolutely the case. I was trying to make that point earlier, but I did not do it as clearly as the noble Baroness has just done. Of course that should happen, and it does happen.

If we remove the option, we will find that women, regardless of circumstance, are forced to attend the clinic. I do not think that is sensible. We should allow women the choice to decide what the best route for them is. Some women—for example, those in abusive relationships, those living in rural areas, those with great caring responsibilities and those who cannot travel safely for some reason—may no longer be able to access safe, essential abortion care.

There is widespread support from the medical establishment for the telemedicine service remaining an option for women, including from all the relevant royal colleges, not just the RCOG. It goes across the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists—indeed, all those royal colleges that have a clear and obvious responsibility for providing good services for those women seeking an abortion.

I hope that, in further discussion today, that will be recognised and we will not hear comments—as were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton—that many doctors are opposed to this. That is simply not the case; they are in favour of Clause 208 and of the telemedicine service.

The evidence is clear—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Could I further clarify and ask a question—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

Let me just finish, I am just about to complete what I was going to say. I am happy to take the question.

The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times; enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage; maintained high safety and effectiveness rates; improved privacy, which is something that most women in these circumstances really appreciate; and increased safeguarding disclosures. It expands choice and keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. That in itself is exceedingly important too.

To weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not improve safety; it would instead reduce access, delay care and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works. It is safe, effective and must be maintained.

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

My Lords, views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held. We should all respect each other for that. We had a long debate in Committee. This is Report. Members should make their points. Repeated interventions do not help us at this stage. We need to take the temperature down. The House can make its decision known in the Division Lobbies later on.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 149 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. I also support the principle underpinning Amendments 150, 151 and 154, all of which aim to prevent a medical practitioner initiating discussions on assisted dying under Clause 5 of the Bill.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I thoroughly agree that doctors must not be permitted to initiate conversations about assisted dying to patients. Let me tell your Lordships why. Doing so would breach their fundamental duty of care to their patients at the very point when the patient may well be at their most fragile—newly diagnosed and frightened about what the future holds. It would not be a neutral clinical act but an intervention laden with power, meaning and consequence. The very suggestion of assisted death from a doctor at such times risks being heard not as an option but as a judgment.

Not long ago, during the scariest time of the Covid-19 pandemic, disabled people were contacted by their GPs to ask them to allow permission for DNR notices to be placed on their medical records should they be hospitalised after contracting the virus. Disabled people were horrified; many contacted me and other parliamentarians to know why they were being treated differently from non-disabled people. They said that it felt as though catching Covid would be a death sentence. Thankfully, the Secretary of State for Health rectified the issue, reminding doctors that their actions were in contravention of the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act, but the damage was already done. Disabled people who relied on their doctors for their health and well-being felt betrayed and unworthy of life-saving treatment.

If a medical practitioner raises the possibility of an assisted death, the patient’s feeling of security and trust will be damaged in the same way as during the pandemic. Your Lordships have often heard me say that I count my blessings every day because my doctors support and celebrate my life, however ill I become. I feel secure knowing that they will do their absolute best, however grim my prognosis may be. Reliance on that assurance is critical to the well-being of patients, especially those with long-term disabilities.

If assisted dying is to become an option, it must be one that is strictly patient-initiated, tightly defined and clearly demarcated from ordinary clinical care. It must sit within a system that prioritises palliative care, practical support and the affirmation of life; otherwise, it will be seen as the simplest and most straightforward option for the patient, their family and friends, the NHS and society as a whole.

The doctor-patient relationship is inherently unequal, and never more so than after a terminal or life-limiting diagnosis. When a doctor introduces the possibility of assisted dying, however delicately phrased, it carries weight. For many patients, particularly those who already feel themselves to be burdensome, costly or devalued, the message risks being internalised as a subtle signal that their lives are no longer worth living.

We must also confront the reality of acute vulnerability. A diagnosis of serious illness often brings shock, despair and temporary suicidal thoughts—feelings that, with time, treatment and compassionate support, frequently pass. This is why I support my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson in her Amendment 149, which seeks to address this. Depression, unmanaged pain, fear and loneliness are not unusual bedfellows for people with a terminal diagnosis. Medical practitioners are not specialists in disentangling these states.

If we are serious about safeguarding autonomy, our first duty is to ensure that people are offered care, hope and practical support, not an expedited exit at a time when they feel most afraid. I therefore hope the noble and learned Lord will recognise this and come back with his own amendments on Report, to ensure that the subject of assisted dying is raised only by the patient and never by a medical practitioner. I would be very pleased to meet him between now and Report to explain further why this is so essential for the legislation to be safe in practice.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

It is with some trepidation that I speak, since I realise how passionately the previous speakers think about what they have said. The first small point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred to Report—we are not going to have a Report stage, because we have taken so long in dealing with all the many, many amendments that have been tabled.

Leaving that on one side, we have to realise that doctors’ main objective is to try to alleviate suffering. This is what those of us backing the Bill believe it does: it will alleviate suffering—sometimes terrible suffering—and torment by allowing people to choose the time of their death when they are already dying. We must not forget this. If we accept that this is the role of doctors, that this is what they try to do in their professional work, we must allow them to discuss at an appropriate point, in their judgment, all the possible options that are available to the dying person. If the Bill were enacted, one of the options would be an assisted death if they had reached that point. So to say that a doctor in a close relationship with his or her patient would be unable to raise this as a possible option would be entirely wrong.

I advise everybody, if they have not done so already, to look at what the BMA says about this. It has specifically briefed against prohibiting doctors from initiating discussion about assisted dying under the Bill, warning that it will be detrimental to patient care. I accept this piece of advice from the BMA. It is a view that many doctors, and some in this Chamber, too, would actually adhere to and agree with.

I very much hope that this group of amendments will not be accepted. It does not mean that at the end the patient is not the one who makes the decision about whether to request an assisted death—of course he or she does. But it just becomes one of the options that is available to them, and that is an option I believe we should allow them to be aware of.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hollins. It was also referred to approvingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, in her earlier remarks. My amendment would prohibit medical professionals from raising assisted dying as an option, unless explicitly requested by the patient.

I will be very brief in introducing this amendment, by pointing out to the Committee that it goes to the heart of a juxtaposition suggested by the Bill. On the one hand, we have an increasingly large, frail, vulnerable, often elderly population, who may not have the full autonomy that the sponsor of the Bill suggests. On the other hand, we have a National Health Service that, by the nature of events, is almost always underfunded and feels that it will be underfunded. If you put those two things together, there will be an inevitable pressure to cut costs and present the cheaper option to the patient who is seeking guidance.

I have carefully read the sponsor’s words in Clause 5 and it is true that, on paper, the patient must be offered the option of palliative care as well as that of an assisted death. However, in these circumstances of financial restriction, I am concerned about the patient being steered in a certain direction. I will not regale the Committee with horror stories from abroad, usually from Canada, about precisely this taking place. Were I to do that, the sponsor of the Bill and others would, quite rightly, point out that there are safeguards in the Bill that are not present in Canada. I would point out in return that safeguards can be whittled away over time. In making that point, I mean nothing to the detriment of the sponsor of the Bill; I am sure that he does not mean it to happen but, over time, people can make amendments and changes to legislation.

I will step back from this amendment and look at it in this way. I believe that assisted dying is intrinsically problematic and, if the Bill ever got further, I would vote against it at Third Reading. However, my concern while we are here is to improve the Bill. If we are to have such a Bill, I want it to be in the best—I should say the least bad—condition possible. Noble Lords know that nothing in the amendment would alter the basic architecture and structure of what the sponsor of the Bill has proposed—in relation to the first doctor, the second doctor, the panel, proxies, the regime for regulating substances or any of that. The amendment would do nothing whatever to prevent anyone seeking an assisted death. All it would do is to prevent a medical professional raising it.

Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the sponsor that, if he wants to make some progress with the Bill, he might accept this amendment or one of the many others in this group to a similar end. I look forward to hearing him when he replies but, whether he does accept it or not, this amendment would write a safeguard into the Bill that is not there, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 150, 156, 166 and 205, to which I have put my name, and in support of other amendments in the group.

As drafted, the Bill would permit a discussion about assisted dying with the patient before any requirement to discuss expert palliative care. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it would be irresponsible not to allow this. In Australia and New Zealand, doctors are not permitted to initiate such discussions.

As drafted—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

Doctors in Australia are now allowed to do so. The law has been changed there.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I accept the noble Baroness’s intervention, but they certainly thought it was a bad idea, and there is further discussion in South Australia about the issue.

If I may go on: as drafted, the Bill will permit discussion about assisted dying before discussion about palliative care. It would come as something of a shock—

Humanist Weddings

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can answer that for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. A registry office wedding is legally binding in the eyes of the law in England and Wales. A humanist wedding which is not conducted in a registry office would not be legally binding in that sense. A humanist getting married in England or Wales would essentially have to go through a two-stage process to be married in the eyes of the law in England and Wales.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on dropping the rather meaningless phrase “in due time” and telling the House that this is going to be done in the coming months. By that, I assume that it will be within 12 months, because he said in the coming “months” and not in the coming “years”. Can he assure the House that we will have legalised humanist marriages within the next year—in other words, in 12 months?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very glad that noble Lords have noticed the change in wording since the last time this matter was discussed at Oral Questions. The commitment is that in the coming months we will review the situation in the light of the Law Commission submission, and we are well aware of the Labour Party’s commitment in the manifesto.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

When I first walked into the Ministry of Justice and was told that the prison population goes up by 80 people a week, I thought that was manageable. But when you times that by 52, and then by five, you realise the scale of the problem. There are a number of examples of similar situations where people have done things differently. While we have a big problem on our hands, we need to make sure that it becomes a big opportunity to change things, because something is clearly not working.

I will give noble Lords the example of Texas, where they decided that a number of non-violent and first-time offenders would not go to prison but would serve community sentences instead—a number of other states have done similar things. I mentioned earlier that highly prolific low-level offenders actually went to prison for longer. Texas also introduced good-behaviour credits, an incentive scheme for people to behave in prison. Crime went down by 29% and 16 prisons have closed. So we should take hope from the fact that, if we use the evidence and take our time, we can learn from other examples. However, it will take time for the increase in prison numbers to slow down: these things, unfortunately, do not happen quickly enough.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the Statement and the Government’s decision to tackle penal reform, which is long overdue. It is absolutely right to put far more emphasis on non-custodial sentencing. If I have any reservations, they are about embarking on another prison-building programme. The problem is that supply creates demand. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the decision to expand the number of prisons should be reviewed in the context of improvements in non-custodial sentences and their effectiveness, and in the context of David Gauke’s review of sentencing? There is also a case for closing some prisons, even if new ones are to be built, because many are appalling buildings with inadequate accommodation and terrible facilities, and they should go. Perhaps the Minister could also address that question.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

When I walked into Preston Prison, there was a big board next to the governor’s office, with the names and dates of all the governors of the prison from when it first opened. The first governor started working there in 1798; I walked up the same steps that the first prisoners walked up in 1798. So, clearly, we have a problem with lots of old, dilapidated prisons, house blocks and other parts of the prison estate; unfortunately, we need to build new prisons.

It will take time for our reforms to reduce reoffending. It is one of my goals, and I managed to get it into my job title: Minister for Reducing Reoffending. The more we can reduce reoffending, the fewer prisons we will need. Maybe in 20 years’ time we will look to close the prisons built in 1798—but, for now, I am afraid, we need all the space we have got.