Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of St John’s Hospice.

This is one of the most important Bills we will ever see. For centuries, we have protected and preserved life, which is to me, and to so many, sacred. We are now asked to change utterly and create a way to help people die. The opposition is massive, particularly among medical practitioners and their professional associations. This is a profoundly dangerous and flawed Bill. The Constitution Committee rightly affirms our right to scrutinise, amend or reject it.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was to speak today. He was seriously injured last week and he cannot travel. He is not permitted to speak remotely. Had he been here, he would have warned against coercion, inadequate safeguards, inevitable incrementalism and the risk posed to human rights—very important issues.

Is this Bill clear? The consequences are not known. There was no pre-legislative consultation and no proper impact assessment. The committee was selected by the Bill’s promoter. The witnesses selected largely supported the Bill. The evidence secured did not reflect a wide evidence base. Most amendments tabled on Report were not debated or voted on. Many MPs who wanted to speak were not called. The Constitution Committee said yesterday:

“The degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government bill. This is especially concerning given the subject matter of the bill”.


The Bill is a framework for assisted death, nothing more. There are 42 delegated legislative powers, including Henry VIII powers—powers which the DPRRC described as “sweeping, unspecified and unjustified”. Eligibility is very uncertain. What is a reasonably expected death? The definition of terminal illness is unclear: 36% of such diagnoses are recorded after death to be inaccurate; only 48% of prognoses are accurate at six months; and one in two prognoses will be wrong.

Is it safe? Capacity is to be assumed under the Mental Health Act. The assessment process involves two doctors, only one of whom must meet the patient. How will they determine capacity, especially in those suffering from shock, grief and depressive illness after diagnosis? How will it be assessed and monitored? Deaths may take place in hospices. Hospices have said that the Bill is not safe. In care homes, how could it be safe? In people’s homes, are doctors going to be able to manage their practices if they have to stay until the patient is dead—for up to 137 hours? What if someone does not die? It does happen.

Nobody has to check why someone wants to die. Coercion? Someone who feels they are a burden on others, or is lonely or isolated. And how will we keep our doctors and other clinicians safe? Clinicians are being asked to forget, “First do no harm”, and to provide medication to terminate a patient’s life. Many will not do it. What will be the effect of this on our doctors? Suicide rates are already higher among doctors than generally. According to the BMJ, a doctor dies by suicide every 10 days. How will we care for our doctors and keep them in practice? There is a shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists because of the processes around abortion. The president of the Royal College of Radiologists recently said that there is

“a chronic lack of radiologists and oncologists … the outlook is bleak”.

What will be the effects of the introduction of assisted death in this situation?

Finally, is it accountable? If only 1% of people seek assisted death, that will be nearly 6,000 a year. How will the VAD commissioner find the psychiatrists, lawyers and social workers to constitute panels for 6,000 applications a year at a time when all three professions are understaffed? At only one hour a case, it would take 18,000 panel member hours a year—and, internationally, the rate is much higher than 1%.

The Bill provides little protection and no security around how death comes about. There will be no inquests. Nobody will ask about coercion, abandonment or anything else. Around 50% of those who die cannot get specialist palliative care. Why do we fund 100% of services at the beginning of life but only 30% at the end? Dame Cicely Saunders said:

“You don’t have to kill the patient in order to kill the pain”.


This Bill is ill-conceived, uncertain and unsafe. It should be rejected.

Public Order Legislation

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Viscount is referring to recent actions relating to Palestine Action, which I believe he is, he will remember that the House of Commons voted 385 to 26 only on 23 June and this House voted 144 to 16 only on 3 July to put in place measures to proscribe Palestine Action. One of the reasons for proscription was to ensure that people cannot support that organisation because of advice we were given about the levels of terrorist activity. The police are currently enforcing that legislation for those holding a placard in Parliament Square saying, “I support Palestine Action”. It is important that, in a couple of months, we look at how the legislation has progressed. By that I mean that there will be published statistics on the number of arrests, the number of charges and the number of convictions. I suggest this House awaits that information and remembers the reasons why, at this Dispatch Box and in the House of Commons, Ministers stood up and asked for that proscription order, overwhelmingly supported by both Houses.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened to the Minister talk about the reviews he intends to have on the legislation, but there is serious concern in the country about the erosion of the right to free speech. That is demonstrated by the hundreds of people who have turned out simply to express their opinion about the situation in Palestine. They do not want to commit acts of violence. They believe that our country has always cherished its right to free speech. So although His Majesty’s Government intend to have reviews, this issue is bringing the law into disrepute because so much police time is being used in processing the hundreds of people who are arrested in situations which are, as the noble Viscount said, questionable. What can the Government do short of two years to ensure that our democratic right to free speech is protected?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the rights to free speech, to protest, and to make a view known about Palestine or Israel, or any other issue before the House, are central to the democratic rights that we all have as citizens. This House, with the other House, made a decision to proscribe Palestine Action. That does not mean that people cannot protest about the issue of Palestine or support or condemn Israel—it does not mean any of that. It means that Palestine Action has been deemed, on advice to Ministers, an organisation that goes beyond issues of protest and of criminal damage to organise activities which are potentially in the sphere of terrorist activity. I say to the noble Baroness: protest about Palestine, protest about Israel, protest any way you like—wave a flag, hold a placard—but supporting Palestine Action under the terms of the proscription order in this House and in the House of Commons, overwhelmingly passed, deserves to have action taken. That is why the police are upholding that legislation currently.

Police: Facial Recognition Technology

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I understand that people want to ensure that there is a legal framework for interpreting not just facial recognition but other such things. As I have mentioned, a plethora of organisations are looking at different aspects of regulation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to look at that and to give clearer guidance on the use of what I still maintain is an effective tool. If this helps stop crime and identifies potential individuals through intelligence-led policing, then it is a good thing.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but he did not actually answer the part about procurement of facial recognition technology and so on. For the most part, the many accountability organisations that he listed do not actually examine procurement, and if they do it is only in the context of compliance with procurement requirements and not necessarily with, for example, considerations of national security.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I tried to answer my noble friend’s initial Question as best as I could. Procurement is another issue we are looking at. In the Government’s forward look to policing, we are considering what areas of work we can bring in centrally in terms of the guidance and support for the 43 police forces currently operating. Again, without pre-empting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s review, one possibility is giving greater guidance on procurement and issues such as facial recognition technology and other forms of preventive activity by police forces.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look at that for the noble and learned Baroness. Again, I am accountable for this area, but the direct responsibility is with my colleague Jess Phillips. I will raise that with her to see what discussions are going on, but the noble and learned Baroness can rest assured that the strategy we are bringing forward on violence against women and girls is a cross-government strategy, to which all departments are contributing. I will examine the specific responsibilities of the DfE and get back to the noble and learned Baroness.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the Government’s strategy is welcome, particularly in so far as it affects women in the country who have linguistic and cultural difficulties in trying to articulate what is happening to them and trying to seek help. Given that one-third of complaints about domestic violence are made by men and boys, and that number is increasing, what plans do the Government have to enhance provision for those men and young boys who are subject to domestic violence?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. Domestic violence is seen through the window of being violence against women, but it is also male on male, female on male, and a range of other forms. I will take that away and respond to her in due course.

Iranian State Threats

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid that I may sound like a broken record, but the Government keep under review, at all times, the option of proscription. We will not publicly speculate in the House about the line that needs to be crossed to have proscription. However, I hope that my noble friend can be reassured that it remains an option that the Government can consider and can bring before both Houses.

Irrespective of proscription, the National Security Act, which this House passed in 2023, specifically bans assisting foreign intelligence services, such as the IRGC. The Act also criminalises receiving material benefit—such as payment—from these types of organisations. The maximum penalty for transgressing that Act is 14 years in prison, the same maximum as a proscription offence. Although proscription remains an issue for the Government to consider, there are now specific powers to ensure that individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the National Security Act face severe penalties and jail.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in working for freedom and democracy in Iran. I welcome the Statement made in the Commons on Tuesday on increasing Government action against the Iranian regime. In that Statement, we received information about 20 identified potentially lethal Iran-backed threats to British citizens and UK residents, and its targeting of dissidents, of which we are all aware.

I listened carefully to the Minister respond repeatedly to the questions about the proscription of the IRGC. I had a Written Question about this issue in January. I am delighted to hear that Jonathan Hall is reviewing the situation. We ask him to make it an absolute priority, given the appalling situation in Iran, with 800 executions since last July. Action is definitely necessary.

Finally, I ask the Government to engage directly with Iranian pro-democracy groups and dissidents, so as not to legitimise the regime by refusing to engage with them, and to support Iranian civil society and opposition movements advocating for a democratic, secular republic. In particular, I ask the Government to permit Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, to visit the United Kingdom? She currently lives in France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the first part, I will not repeat what I have already said on proscription, but it is helpful to say—as the Statement does—that Jonathan Hall KC was asked to review the parts of our counterterrorism framework which could be applied to modern-day state threats, such as those from Iran. This includes giving specific consideration to the design of a proscription mechanism for state and, importantly—going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said earlier—state-linked bodies, providing more flexibility than is offered under the existing powers. I cannot give a timescale for that review but we are encouraging it to happen speedily. We have Bills before the Commons and Lords that it could be added to downstream if required. I noted what she said about civic society and leaders. I will take that away and reflect on it.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are cognisant of the fact that there have been failures by individuals who should have had a responsibility for safeguarding children. We will look at that and put in place the lessons learned. But I do not think—speaking personally, as well as on behalf of the Government—that a four or five-year inquiry will add to the sum of knowledge that we have, for the very reasons that the noble Viscount outlined. What we need to do is to implement action to ensure that we prevent further child abuse. That is what this Government’s main focus will be.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I chaired the Catholic Council for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. My role there was to ensure that the Catholic Church co-operated fully with the inquiry. The CCIICSA still exists, because the recommendations have not been implemented. In that role, I sat through much of the inquiry, and I heard an enormous amount of evidence from victims. Many of those victims were visibly retraumatised by the very experience of giving evidence to IICSA; their pain was very often palpable. It also seemed to me, as I watched, that they were traumatised by listening to others who were giving their evidence as witnesses—but they had to be heard; there is no question about that. The Minister has said that there was a module in IICSA that effectively dealt with organised crime. The people who participated in those hearings, and all the other hearings of IICSA, do not need a further inquiry; they need action. We spent £186 million on IICSA, and it was money well spent. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to finding ways to implement the recommendations now to protect all our children for the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for that support, and for her support for the Government not reinvigorating or starting again a national inquiry. She makes an extremely important point about victims. Victims are victims and, whatever has happened, they are being traumatised and have been traumatised, and will carry that with them for many years, if not for life. Therefore, the Government recognise that we need to support victims and survivors. We will look at the issue of compensation in slower time now, but we are doing that. We also recognise the significant impact that funding for support services can play in helping victims. The Home Office, my department, is continuing to provide funding to voluntary organisations for survivors of child sexual abuse. We will continue to work across government to ensure that we put a proper victims package in place to help support them.

Police Accountability

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings extensive experience to this debate and these questions from his policing background. I understand the points he has made, but I hope he will understand when I say to him first and foremost that I cannot second-guess the decisions that were taken by the CPS and/or the IOPC about this case. Those decisions were taken—that is their right to do so—and ultimately those charges were brought in a proper way under the legislation and framework that was in place. They have been put before a jury and the jury has determined that there is no case to answer for those charges. That is the history of this matter, difficult though it is.

As well as the anonymity issue, which is important, the Home Secretary has brought forward three measures in the Statement to improve the timeliness and fairness of investigations: aligning the threshold of IOPC referrals of officers to the CPS so that we can examine that in detail; speeding up the process whereby the IOPC sends cases to the CPS and putting the IOPC victims’ right to review policy on a statutory footing; and reviewing the DPP guidance on the existing legal framework, which will conclude by the end of 2024. Those things are in train. While the noble Lord might want me to opine about the decision that was taken, I cannot, but I am sure this House will hold me to account in future as to the outcome of those reviews downstream.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, having served as Police Ombudsman and having had the awesome responsibility of investigating a fatal police shooting, I know that these incidents are very, very rare. I know how difficult this is for all concerned—the family of Chris Kaba, but most particularly now, Sergeant Blake and his family, given what they must have suffered over these last two years. I want to express my gratitude here in this House to the firearms officers who protect us here in Westminster, day in, day out, in a situation in which one of their number lost his life not too long ago. That is very important.

I welcome the decision to introduce anonymity prior to conviction for a police officer if they are put on trial. It is reassuring to see the equalisation of the threshold for prosecution, because trust is fundamental to this, and there will not be trust in the prosecution service or the prosecution process unless the public can believe that there is equality before the law.

Can the Minister assure us that the review of these cases will consider the necessity for extensive forensic investigation, which on many occasions takes quite a long time? That has to be factored in; we do not serve officers well if we rush these cases. Secondly, can the Minister assure us that funding of the IOPC will be looked at in terms of the number of cases it has to carry? Increasingly frequently, it has to return cases to the police to investigate, which leads to distrust in the process. People go to the IOPC thinking they are getting an independent investigation of police complaints, and they end up back with the police force investigating the complaint. May I ask that those matters be considered? Funding the IOPC is actually cheaper than the cost of police officers investigating.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who brings her experience to this debate. We both spent time in Northern Ireland some time ago, when I was a Minister and she was the police ombudsperson responsible for those areas. I welcome her welcome for the anonymity clause; it is vital that it be put in place. The decision was taken in this court case not by me, this House or the Government, but by a judge at that time. There is no criticism of that; it was entirely their decision to make. However, we have reflected on that and determined that anonymity in this case will prevent the type of difficulty and challenges that Officer Blake has had post acquittal, even though he was acquitted. That is a really important issue.

The noble Baroness mentioned forensic investigations. Self-evidently, these matters are beyond my remit, but it is important that the case presented includes all the information. If it takes time to bring forensic information forward, so be it, and we need to factor that in as part of our review. In Budget week, I cannot comment too much on funding for the IOPC, but I am sure we will revisit that in due course. If the noble Baroness wishes to question that post-Wednesday, we can discuss then the adequacy or otherwise of the budget for the IOPC.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, as I have listened to the debate today, I have been very much aware that noble Lords are seized of the fact that our role is to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp government proposals, as I think we are being asked to do by No. 10. This is our duty and I have no doubt that your Lordships will fulfil that duty with integrity.

Last week, we voted that the Rwanda treaty, on which the Bill relies for legitimacy, should not be implemented until the mechanisms and processes it establishes have been given effect. For the moment, they are aspirational. Anyone who has been involved in the process of establishing new systems and mechanisms knows that these things are not done properly, even in a country such as the UK, which has the advantage of a long-established judicial and criminal justice system and is familiar with accountability mechanisms. Rwanda is not that type of country.

I know that the Bill applies only to those who have come to the UK by unsafe and illegal routes, and that the destruction of the human trafficking business which facilitates access to the UK by these routes is a very necessary and desirable aim. That goes to the heart of the Bill.

Analysis and research led by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law finds, inter alia, that the Bill and treaty would put the UK in breach of its obligations under Article 4 of the ECHR and Article 10 of ECAT: obligations to identify and assist every potential victim of modern slavery and human trafficking, regardless of immigration status or method of entry. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that the Bill

“will, deliberately, abdicate responsibility under the 1951 Refugee Convention, threaten the international refugee protection regime and risk the erosion of the UK’s standing and ability to collaborate in the multilateral system”.

We cannot by stating something make it a reality. If Rwanda is not safe for some people—many noble Lords have pointed out why and where it is not safe, and have pointed to the people who have been given asylum here from Rwanda—the question must arise: what does it mean to say that it is a “safe country”? As the Law Society of England and Wales said:

“Simply put, the Supreme Court found Rwanda to not be a safe country; legislating the reverse will not change the situation on the ground”.


We cannot by legislation make the statement in Clause 1(5) a reality. We have not been told what has changed since the Supreme Court judgment, apart from the making of the Rwanda treaty a few weeks ago—which, as I said, contains a range of aspirational measures that will require very significant work to become operational. As the Law Society also said, as the Bill stands, even if the court is presented with overwhelming evidence that Rwanda is not safe, it would have to ignore that evidence and treat Rwanda as a safe country.

Redress, which pursues claims on behalf of survivors of torture, makes a very important point:

“The Bill sends out a dangerous signal that the UK is willing to circumvent the rule of law, and so undermines the international rules-based order. The UK has historically led the way in establishing the rule of law and should not now contribute to the threats it faces internationally”.


But we know, because we have seen it in your Lordships’ House, that this Government are getting into the habit of disapplying their human rights obligations and undermining the rule of law. I point yet again to the legacy Act passed in Northern Ireland, which removes all rights to compensation under the civil law, to inquests and to prosecutions, except in very limited circumstances.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission advises that refugees and asylum seekers are protected by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and that rights particular to refugees and asylum seekers are within the scope of the Good Friday agreement by virtue, in particular, of the commitment to civil rights and to incorporate the European convention into domestic law. It cites many measures which are binding on the UK and which continue to set standards for human rights protection below which the law in Northern Ireland should not fall. Yet this Bill seeks to deprive individuals of that protection. It suggests that the current relationship between the UK courts, the UK Parliament and international law is balanced—but this Bill will create an imbalance.

We have heard so many voices articulating the dangers and, indeed, perils of this Bill. Undoubtedly, we have to find ways to resolve the problem that gave rise to the Bill and to dismantle, if possible, the highly lucrative businesses profiting from the plight of those who seek a safer and better life. I do not think that many of us could live in Syria, Afghanistan or anywhere else on a salary of about £10 a month, which is the average salary there.

This Bill is not the way forward. At the very least, until Parliament can be assured that the mechanisms and institutions of the Rwanda treaty are in place and that there is consideration of each asylum seeker and any particular vulnerabilities they may have, Parliament should exercise its sovereignty and decline to pass this ill thought-out Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, the Government have yet to respond to your Lordships’ decision on the Rwanda treaty, which is so fundamental to the Bill. This Bill does not stand alone. We will appear ridiculous if we pass a Bill saying that Rwanda is safe simply to overrule our independent Supreme Court, which said that it could not be considered a safe country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I am not familiar with that part. However, I have just read out the relevant clause in the Bill that deals with specific individual circumstances.

Any person who has been relocated to Rwanda but who subsequently receives a court or tribunal order from the UK that they must be treated as a minor, and are therefore a child who is in Rwanda without a parent or guardian, shall be provided with suitable accommodation and support that meets all the requirements for families with children set out within the treaty under paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2.2 of Part 1 of Annex A to the treaty until the child is returned to the UK.

With regard to concerns about the impacts of the policy on children treated as adults, I reassure noble Lords that there are safeguards in place to prevent that happening. The Home Office will treat an individual claiming to be a child as an adult without conducting further inquiries only if two officers—one of at least chief immigration officer grade or equivalent—have separately determined that the individual’s physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are “significantly over 18 years” of age. If doubt remains about whether the claimant is an adult or a child, they are treated as a child for immigration purposes until a further assessment of their age by a local authority or the National Age Assessment Board. This will usually entail a careful, holistic age assessment, known as a Merton-compliant age assessment. Only once this assessment is complete could the individual then be treated as an adult if found to be so.

Many noble Lords have asked whether this Bill will comply with international law. Its provisions are consistent with our international law obligations. They retain rights challenge based on compelling evidence of serious and irreversible harm in specific individual circumstances, which will arise in narrow circumstances.

In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Howarth, I say that the Bill makes it clear that it is only for a Minister of the Crown to determine whether to comply with an interim measure of the Strasbourg court. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for their comments on this.

I will not get drawn into speculation about hypothetical scenarios, but the internationally binding treaty agreed between the UK and Rwanda contains binding commitments to ensure that the scheme is compliant with international law, including the ECHR. It also makes it clear that domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measures when considering any domestic application flowing from a decision to relocate a person to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty.

The Permanent Secretary for the Home Office has confirmed that if we receive a Rule 39, instead of deferring removal immediately—as the guidance currently indicates—officials will refer the Rule 39 to the Minister for an immediate decision. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, I say that the Cabinet Office has confirmed that it is the responsibility of civil servants under the Civil Service Code to deliver that decision. Consideration will be on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts. I also remind noble Lords that, as the Government have set out, both the UK and Rwanda are committed to making this partnership work.

As my noble friend Lord Murray set out, the Section 19(1)(b) statement is not specific to one provision; it applies to the Bill as a whole. A statement under Section 19(1)(b) makes it clear, in this instance, that the Home Secretary is not able to state now that the Bill’s provisions are more likely than not compatible with convention rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing Bills with a Section 19(1)(b) statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenges on human rights grounds. Parliament clearly intended Section 19(1)(b) to be used as it is included in the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an important measure to safeguard parliamentary sovereignty. Section 19(1)(b) statements have been used by Governments of all stripes before. For example, the Bill that became the Communications Act 2003 included a provision banning paid political advertising on TV. The use in this case recognises the novel and ambitious approach taken by this Bill, and the fact there is room for argument both ways. We are testing the limits but remain satisfied that this Bill is compatible with international law.

The Bill allows decision-makers and the courts to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for a person due to their particular individual circumstances, as we have discussed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London noted, the Bill does not disapply Section 4 on declaration of incompatibility, as this is the only substantive remedy against the conclusive presumption that Rwanda is safe. Retaining DOIs allows the courts to respond to changing circumstances and for this question to be brought back for parliamentary consideration. Of course, the final say on the matter will remain with Parliament and the Government because Section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that a declaration cannot affect the operation or validity of domestic legislation.

The effect of retaining this Section 4 is therefore beneficial in limiting domestic and international legal challenge and, crucially, does not undermine the operation of the Bill, and in doing so reaffirms parliamentary sovereignty. The court could not grant interim relief on the basis of a DOI having been granted because of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked about the impact of the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Bill will apply fully in Northern Ireland in the same way as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is explicit in the Bill and will always be the case, reflecting that immigration policy is a UK-wide matter. Nothing in the Windsor Framework, including Article 2, or the trade continuity agreement affects this. The Bill’s provisions do not diminish the rights and commitments we have made on the convention on human rights in the Belfast agreement. The Government remain fully committed to that agreement in all its parts. The Government are unshakable in their commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the Bill does not undermine this.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Has the noble Lord actually read the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s advice on this matter? Has he taken cognisance of the number of measures he lists which are affected, and the fact it is an obligation under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have just set out to the noble Baroness, the Government takes a different view to those opinions.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the costs of this partnership. The spend on the MEDP with Rwanda so far is £240 million. Further funding will be provided to Rwanda once the partnership is operational. Costs and payments will depend on the number of people relocated, the timing of when this happens and the outcomes of individual cases. Spending will continue to be reported as part of annual Home Office reports and accounts in the usual way. Those focusing solely on the costs of this partnership are missing the point. It is incredibly frustrating for the British people and the taxpayer to spend billions to house illegal migrants in hotels. The daily cost of hotels for migrants is £8 million and the cost of the UK’s asylum system has roughly doubled in the last year; it now stands at nearly £4 billion. Criminal smuggling gangs are continuing to turn a profit using small boats. We must bring an end to this.

The Government recognise the extraordinary level of interest in this partnership, and we take our responsibility to be transparent seriously. However, that must be balanced with the nuances of managing our international relationships and respecting commercial sensitivities. We have said we will do what it takes to curb illegal migration and stop the boats. As we explore avenues of doing this, it would be against our direct interests to release all financial information. Costs and payments of course will depend on the number of people relocated, the timing of when this happens, and the outcomes of individual cases. Every individual’s needs are different, and funding will only be provided while an individual remains in Rwanda. Spending will be reported as part of the annual Home Office reports and accounts in the usual way.

I am getting to the end. Noble Lords have asked whether this Bill will, by disapplying international law, have a knock-on impact on wider international treaties and potentially worsen the UK’s relationship with the ECHR. We have a long and diverse history of freedoms in this country, and we are proud of the UK’s heritage and culture on human rights and democracy. But no country has all the answers to global human rights challenges. We continue to engage others about our ongoing journey on these issues—a point made by many noble Lords and emphasised by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary on 16 January.

I am again thankful for all the contributions made to today’s debate. It is absolutely essential that we tackle illegal migration, bring an end to such dangerous channel crossings and save lives. To the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I say that the integrity of our border also matters. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Government in delivering the partnership with Rwanda, and our wider plans to take control of our borders and stop the boats. These are difficult choices to make with regards to tackling this issue. That is what this Government are doing, and we will continue to do so. The Bill will enable us to stop the boats, and I commend it to the House. I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling these two Motions to allow your Lordships’ House to consider the Rwanda treaty before we have to consider the Rwanda Bill. As noble Lords have said, the treaty and the Bill are consequential on the Supreme Court judgment that Rwanda cannot be assumed to be a safe place. This is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated, an exceptional report. Its findings are very grave indeed. Next week, we will be asked in the Rwanda Bill to accept that Rwanda is a safe place, despite the fact that the evidence does not exist, as my noble friend Lord Alton just graphically illustrated.

The Home Secretary says in the Bill that he is unable to make a statement that the Bill is compliant with the Human Rights Act. That in itself should cause your Lordships alarm. We have obligations under not only the Human Rights Act but international legal instruments, and this is not the first occasion on which this Government have produced legislation which is not compatible with our international and domestic legal obligations. I think of the legacy Act currently being challenged in the High Court in Northern Ireland. Actions such as the introduction of the Rwanda Bill, which relies on a treaty which the Government have only just signed and which provides for a very complex structure of mechanisms to make it work at all, which will require the identification of personnel, accommodation, IT systems, training, new asylum law and many other processes, none of which exist at present, do further grave damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation. What is so stark, on reading the report of the International Agreements Committee, is the manifest lack of ability, capacity and preparedness to make the provisions of the treaty operational in the near future, in addition to its other deficiencies.

That there is a problem of uncontrolled unlawful migration cannot be denied. However, the Government’s response over past years has been generally to reduce the number of staff employed to deal with asylum matters and the general resources provided for these matters, and above all, the failure, as my noble friend Lord Alton said, to devise a workable, human rights-compliant strategy to resettle displaced people and, more importantly, to work internationally to create levels of peace and prosperity in the countries from which so many of these migrants come.

We granted more than 500,000 asylum applications this year, 70% of the total number of applications. In contrast, some 25,000 illegal immigrants arrived in small boats last year. In future, we are planning to send such people out to Rwanda before their asylum status has been determined if they enter through what are called

“dangerous, illegal and unnecessary methods”.

Already this year, 614 people are reported to have arrived in 15 boats, which is about 40 people a boat. Their status is then to be determined in Rwanda and there is an agreement that they will not be deported by Rwanda unless the UK asks for them to be sent back to the UK. However, there is evidence that Rwanda has deported to Uganda people who arrived there under comparable arrangements. Moreover, if they are not granted refugee status in Rwanda, their future will be very bleak indeed. It will not be possible under the proposed processes to track and monitor what happens to them. The proposals for tracking and monitoring are time-limited and are currently an aspiration rather than a reality.

In a very unstructured and knee-jerk way, we are attempting to limit the number of people coming to our shores. In so doing we have spent hundreds of millions of pounds. We have paid many millions to France—I think it will be half a billion pounds over the three years ending in 2026—yet those seeking to come unlawfully to the UK are still able to set off from France, with an average of 40 people in a standard inflatable. Many of those inflatables have come under significant pressure, and people have died as a consequence.

Getting 40 people into an inflatable and setting it on course for England cannot achieved speedily. It must be possible for the French to do more in return for the money that we have given them. Through the use of drones or helicopters, allowing for intervention on French soil, a positive and proactive French response in this context would undoubtedly have a deterrent effect.

Moreover, we are spending millions on policing the channel. We no longer have the coastal vessels necessary for these channel operations, because their replacement was delayed by the Government; so we are now hiring private vessels to do the work, at a cost of £36 million in a year. Work to replace these vessels will not start for another two years and is not expected to be completed before 2028, so we will spend another £200 million picking people out of the Channel. That is in addition to the money we are spending each day on accommodating people and providing the necessary resources for their processing and appeals, et cetera.

The solutions proposed in this treaty, even if they were acceptable in human rights terms—and there is no evidence that they are so acceptable—have yet to be realised in any degree. The committee has identified very significant matters that require to be addressed before the UK can have any confidence that the structures will actually work, that Rwanda will be a safe place for migrants to be processed, and that the UK can be satisfied that migrants will not simply be deported to third countries, in breach of the requirements of the treaty.

If the UK has such difficulty in providing accommodation, education, healthcare and all the other services that are necessary, can the Minister explain how the UK can expect that Rwanda will be able to do so? Most particularly, to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, how can he assure the House that children and vulnerable adults will be kept safe under these arrangements?

The committee has said:

“The Government has presented the Rwanda Treaty to Parliament as an answer to the Supreme Court judgment and has asked Parliament, on the basis of the Treaty, to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. While the Treaty might in time provide the basis for such an assessment if it is rigorously implemented, as things stand the arrangements it provides for are incomplete. A significant number of further legal and practical steps are required under the treaty”.


The committee gives, as examples, the new asylum law that is required, as well as

“a system for ensuring that refoulement does not take place; … a process for submitting individual complaints to the Monitoring Committee”—

which is yet to get its support people—

“the appointment of independent experts to advise the asylum First Instance and Appeals Bodies; … the appointment of co-presidents of the Appeals Body; … the appointment of international judges; …training for international judges in Rwandan law and practice; … training for Rwandan officials dealing with asylum applicants; and … steps to ensure a sufficient number of trained legal advisers and interpreters are available”.

Can the Minister tell the House the timetable for the creation and establishment of all these structures and when they will be delivered in a way that will enable the House to have confidence that people who are sent to Rwanda will be safe? Even after all that work has been done, there will have to be further work to ensure that what has been established actually works.

Your Lordships have heard repeatedly that there is no evidence that Rwanda is currently a safe place. The structures provided in this treaty are, quite simply, not operational at present, and not capable of being operational. For that reason, I will vote to support the Motion that the Government should not ratify the treaty until the protections that it provides have been fully implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I was just getting to that. As regards children where the age-assessment results are not conclusive, the Home Office will treat an individual claiming to be a child as an adult only after further inquiries by two officers, one of at least chief immigration officer grade or equivalent, have separately determined that the individual’s physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18 years of age.

The lawfulness of this process was recently fully endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of BF (Eritrea) from 2021. If doubt remains about whether the claimant is an adult or a child, they are treated as a child for immigration purposes until a further assessment of their age by a local authority or the National Age Assessment Board. This will usually entail a careful holistic age assessment, known as a Merton-compliant age assessment. Only once this assessment is completed could the individual then be treated as an adult if found to be so.

Under the Illegal Migration Act, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, although these challenges are non-suspensive and can continue from outside the UK after an applicant has been removed. The treaty provides for the return of anyone who is removed as an adult and later determined to be a child, and appropriate temporary care of such an individual.

A number of noble Lords have referred to the UNHCR report. The first thing to state is that the Government are not abdicating responsibilities, as alluded to by the UNHCR, and as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. This is a partnership with Rwanda, helping to make the immigration system fairer and ensuring that people are safe and enjoying new opportunities to flourish.

As this Government have made clear, tackling the issue of illegal migration requires bold and innovative solutions, and our partnership with Rwanda offers that. Rwanda is a safe country that cares deeply about refugees and currently hosts over 130,000 asylum seekers. Indeed, the UNHCR has signed an agreement with the Government of Rwanda and the African Union to continue the operations of the emergency transit mechanism centre in Rwanda. By temporarily accommodating some of the most vulnerable refugee populations, who have faced trauma, detentions and violence, Rwanda has showcased its willingness and ability to work collaboratively to provide solutions to refugee situations and crises. This agreement has also attracted EU funding, which will support the continued operation of the ETM until 2026.

The Home Office has granted refugee status to nationals from Rwanda, as noted by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. How then can we say Rwanda is safe? People from many different nationalities apply for asylum in the UK. They include nationals from some of our closest European neighbours and other safe countries around the world.

Each case is considered on its individual merits by caseworkers who receive extensive training. All available evidence is carefully and sensitively considered in light of published country information. Asylum decision-makers carefully consider everyone’s protection needs regardless of nationality by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant, in light of the latest available country-of-origin information. Asylum claims made by persons from Rwanda will have an individual assessment made against the background of relevant case law, policy guidance and the latest available country-of-origin information. Paragraphs 339J and 339JA of the Immigration Rules require decision-makers to take into account all relevant country-of-origin information in making their decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked about the Home Secretary and the signing of the Section 19(1)(b) human rights statement. This does not mean that the legislation is incompatible with the ECHR. It means that the Home Secretary cannot say that it is more likely to be compatible than not. That is the consequence of this being an ambitious and novel Bill, which is what is needed to fulfil our commitment to tackle the small boats. There is nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing ambitious and innovative ways of solving such endemic issues as migration. We believe that it is lawful and we are acting in compliance with our international obligations.

The Supreme Court’s judgment was made on the basis of the facts in June 2022.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, could he explain to your Lordships why, if the Government believe this Bill is lawful, the Minister is unable to say that it is lawful?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think I just did. I will go over it again. As I said, the Home Secretary, cannot say that it is more likely to be compatible than not. That is not the same as the question that the noble Baroness just asked me. This is the consequence of it being an ambitious and novel Bill. There is nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing ambitious and innovative ways of solving such issues. We believe that it is lawful and we are acting in compliance with our international obligations.

The Supreme Court’s judgment was made on the basis of the facts in June 2022 when the case was brought. It made clear that, while it had concerns about the arrangements in place in June 2022, changes to safeguard against risks “may be delivered in the future”.

The UK’s treaty with Rwanda responds comprehensively to the court’s concerns. It provides a binding guarantee in international law against refoulement and provides guarantees about the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda. It reflects the work that we and the Rwandan Government have completed in the 18 months since June 2022 and, once ratified, it ensures that no one will be sent into a position where they would face a real risk of harm.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, noted, it is unprecedented for the House of Lords to place conditions on an international treaty in this way. Never in the history of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 has either House forced a vote to try to delay the ratification of a treaty until its provisions have been implemented.

Police: Restoring Public Confidence

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate for us today. I declare my interest as a member of the independent steering group of Operation Kenova, which is investigating referrals from the chief constable of Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland on murders and other crimes committed by both republicans and loyalist paramilitaries.

My experience both here in the UK and overseas tells me that confidence in policing is the product of trust, and that trust exists when people know and understand why policing is conducted in the way it is. Governments and police forces have to be able to show that whatever is done is done with integrity and fairness and that it is compliant with the human rights obligations in domestic and international law. However, that is not enough.

No matter how well individual police officers conduct themselves, trust in what they do and how they do it will normally exist only where policing operates as part of a well-resourced, human rights-compliant justice system. All parts of that system are vital: the police, the IOPC, the courts and the prosecution service. If one part fails, the whole system, but particularly policing, falls into disrepute. Those affected by the failure do not discriminate between police failures and the consequential actions of prosecutors and the courts, so trust in the police will inevitably decline.

In Northern Ireland I have seen totally unacceptable delays in decision-making and consequential prosecutions by the PPS. I think of the admission by one UVF brigadier of over 200 criminal offences, and his conviction for murder, attempted murder, arson, extortion and kidnapping in 2018. It was anticipated that further trials would follow. There has been a deafening silence.

I think too of the submission by Operation Kenova of 36 files to the DPP in a range of cases, including the activities of the IRA agent “Stakeknife” and the murder of three young police officers, Sean Quinn, Paul Hamilton and Allan McCloy, who died in October 1982 when the IRA blew up their car near Lurgan. The DPP has yet to make a decision on these files. Suggestions have been made of a shortage of legal expertise to deal with them, but legitimate questions are being asked about why there is no decision. Is the hope that the legacy Bill will proceed into law and put an end to embarrassing disclosures in courts? That is what some people think, and it is axiomatic that the absence of prosecutorial decisions, et cetera, will contribute to a general distrust in criminal justice processes and a perception that in these cases the rule of law, which is fundamental to the operation of a trusted criminal justice system, is not being observed in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK.

Confidence in policing is dependent on the proper resourcing and operation of the wider criminal justice system, but what is it about the way in which policing is delivered that can generate trust? The MPS has been the subject of significant reports over the past few decades. I served in 2002 on an inquiry led by Sir David Calvert- Smith KC on racism in policing in all 43 forces in the UK. We found very significant problems and made 125 recommendations. This was 20 years ago; just a few short weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, published her report, in which she heard evidence very similar to that which we heard in 2002. There are yet more calls for change.

In 2021, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I led, published its report on the Metropolitan Police. This was an inquiry into the handling of matters following the murder of a private detective in south London in 1987. Over 34 years there had been multiple investigations, inquiries, et cetera. What we found was indicative of a culture within the MPS which did not prevent failure to investigate the original murder or the protection of those alleged to be involved in it. There were also many other failings and unlawful and unauthorised disclosure of investigation material and information—even about forthcoming arrests—to journalists and others over 30 years, including failure to deal with known police wrongdoing. We found failures of management and leadership and, above all, a determination to protect the Met. Our inevitable conclusion, in the absence of any reasonable explanation for the multiple terrible failures, was that ultimately there was a determination within the MPS to protect its reputation and to ensure that the failings were not made public.

That is not unique to the Met. If we are to grow confidence in policing, we must develop a much wider understanding of corruption than the traditional legislative definitions involving monetary benefit. The starting point is the identification of improper behaviour, by action or omission. So much wrongdoing is enabled by failure to deal with individual or collective wrongful acts; it creates a corrupt culture in which officers may calculate their odds of being able to get away with wrongful behaviour.

Looking at particular incidents can enhance understanding of how corruption develops and confidence diminishes in policing. When an officer, often a junior officer, consults police databases for personal gain or shares police information with an outsider, he or she will often be dealt with. However, in the Daniel Morgan case, it emerged that the senior investigating officer in the final police investigation, DCS David Cook, who retired in 2007 but moved to the NCA and continued to act as the senior investigating officer, had decided to write a book with journalist Michael Sullivan about corruption in the Metropolitan Police. He had removed vast amounts of confidential and secret materials from investigations in which he had been involved, other investigations and intelligence operations to, in his words, “set the record straight”.

Searches of his home uncovered enormous amounts of material belonging to the police and other criminal justice agencies. He had disclosed much of this material to journalists and others. He said that he had done so because, if he could not bring the murderers of Daniel Morgan to justice, he wanted to write a book to reveal evidence of corruption within alliances between elements of policing, private investigation and the media. He hoped to make money from the publication of the book and other associated activities. The matter was not effectively dealt with. Again, the imperative was in part to protect the reputation of the police, rather than to expend resources on dealing with the totality of the issues emerging.

Any serving officer with access to sensitive information has the opportunity to remove it and use it for unlawful purposes, whether for commercial gain or terrorist activities, for example. The failure of the Met to prevent DCS David Cook removing materials over such a protracted period continues to cause me concern about the message that such failure to act sends to other officers and about the extent to which such behaviour may be continuing within the police service, unchecked even today.

If the public are to have confidence in policing, they must be able to believe that internal wrongdoing—whether sexual assaults, homophobia, racism, theft of materials, interference with a case or any other form of misconduct or crime—is dealt with. If such matters are not dealt with, it may be because of laziness, lack of professionalism, negligence or deliberate decision. At the end of the day, motive is important in the individual case, but it is vital to know how it can happen. There is clear evidence of how senior officers can, by their acts or omissions, fail to identify and/or confront corruption; fail to manage investigations and ensure proper oversight; fail to learn from or admit mistakes and failings promptly and specifically; give unjustified assurances that all that could have been done has been done; and fail to be open and transparent.

The Daniel Morgan panel recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation. That did not happen. The creation of such a duty could result in much enhanced confidence in policing, because people would know that, just as there is a statutory duty of candour in the health service, so also there would be a similar duty on policing generally. It is not enough to require individual officers to act with integrity; a statutory duty of candour is required.

What can generate confidence in policing? When the police embarked on their investigations of the abuse allegations made by Carl Beech, alerting the media to those investigations of people such as our late noble and gallant colleague Lord Bramall, whose desk sat opposite mine for many years when I came into your Lordships’ House, it transpired that there was no foundation to those allegations. This matter has been articulated at length by noble Lords. Yet the investigations continued, leaving those under investigation to carry the terrible burdens of suspicion and disruption to their lives—inevitable in such circumstances. When cases such as the murders of Stephen, son of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and of Daniel Morgan are not investigated properly for decades, trust in policing is inevitably damaged and diminished, even destroyed.

The actions of government can have the effect of enhancing policing, making standards clear and resourcing structures and processes properly. Proper modern policing costs money, and I welcome the recent announcement of the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, however, police numbers are now way below what is required to provide an effective service and continue to diminish, despite a terrorist threat level recently raised to severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. The budget has been reduced and police numbers will continue to fall. The circumstances of the very recent attempt to murder DCI John Caldwell, so terribly injured at a local football training session for young people, is indicative of the ease with which terrorists can strike.

We need only to look at the matters currently under investigation by former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher in Operations Kenova and Denton, which are dealing with the activities of loyalist and republican paramilitaries. From the Stalker/Sampson and Stevens investigations and my own work as police ombudsman, we know that the police, the Army and MI5 successfully infiltrated terrorist organisations. However, there grew a time when they allowed people to continue their terrorism to preserve them as agents. People died because of that; it should not have happened.

There is ongoing concern about the activities of informants across the UK today. It took decades to begin to call to account those whose wrongdoing cost lives. Eventually, we reached the point at which accepted mechanisms for accountability were established. That, all the research showed, enhanced confidence in policing.

Now the legacy Bill will terminate existing criminal investigations, civil actions from 17 May and Troubles inquests this month, and will grant immunity to terrorists. It gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State, who is even responsible for making decisions about memorialisation. The Bill has been rejected by everyone. The Government and the Bill have been seriously criticised by the Council of Europe, the commissioner for human rights, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, the Irish Government, the US State Department, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and many others. It deprives survivors and victims of the Troubles of their fundamental legal rights. The Government’s legal obligations are being set aside in the Bill.

If we are to grow confidence in policing, the Government must withdraw the legacy Bill and revert to a process for dealing with the past which is legally compliant and can gain the support of all affected. By continuing to push the Bill, the Government are demonstrating their contempt for the rule of law. Our country and our police have operated for centuries in accordance with the rule of law. Confidence in policing can be promoted, but only if government itself operates within the rule of law.