Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness O'Loan]

422: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“Police disciplinary proceedings: use of force(1) Schedule 2 of the The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/4) (standards of professional behaviour) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading “Use of Force”, at end insert—“Where a police officer uses force on the basis of an honestly held but mistaken belief, they can rely on that belief as justification for the use of force only if the mistake was an objectively reasonable one to have made.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to (1) codify the decision in W(80) UKSC 24, that in police disciplinary proceedings involving use of force, an officer may rely on a mistaken belief only if that belief was both honestly held and objectively reasonable, and (2) and enable parliamentary consideration of the appropriate test in this context.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 422 relates to the test used to determine whether an officer acted in breach of discipline when he or she used force in self-defence. We come late to this, but it is a very important issue. Currently, the test used in police disciplinary law is the civil law test. Under the current law, an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others are in immediate danger, must use only proportionate and necessary force, and, critically, where their belief is mistaken, their mistake must have been an objectively reasonable one.

The amendment is necessary because, following the police accountability rapid review report, published in October 2025, a recommendation was made to change the legal test to the criminal test. This would allow officers to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable. The Government have said they will implement this change through a statutory instrument without public consultation. At this stage, I thank Justince and Inquest for their research on this matter.

The criminal law test, which the Government propose, would allow officers to rely on a mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable, so long as it was honestly held. I fully understand that officers are under great pressure when faced with possible or actual violence. Split-second decisions must be made on the ground in the immediate context. That is why it is critical that officers are properly trained and managed. However, it is not a good reason to move from the civil to the criminal law test.

This determination arose from a criminal law test where the Supreme Court made a decision in the W80 case, where an officer shot a man. When misconduct proceedings were brought, he claimed he had done so in self-defence. The IOPC recommended to the MPS that the officer should face misconduct proceedings, the MPS declined to initiate those proceedings, and the IOPC wrote to the MPS directing disciplinary proceedings. That decision was challenged by judicial review. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant’s claim. The IOPC appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was allowed. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judges commented:

“This is an area of the law of vital importance to the public and to the police. It is essential that the public and the police should be informed in straightforward terms of the law which applies. We hope that it will now be possible to recast legislation and guidance so as to achieve this result”.


This amendment is not about criminal law, and it is not about whether an officer should be prosecuted for the use of force. It seeks only to provide the clarity that the Supreme Court advocated.

The criminal law test is simply not appropriate for disciplinary proceedings. Applying it would undermine public confidence in the police disciplinary process, weaken accountability and make meaningful scrutiny of police use of force far more difficult. The Home Office’s statutory guidance makes it clear that the disciplinary framework is intended to encourage a culture of learning and development for individuals in the organisation. This focus on learning and development is part of what makes disciplinary procedures distinct from criminal procedures. Misconduct processes are an important and excellent opportunity for forces to identify mistakes, learn from them and prevent recurrence.

The Supreme Court in W80 made clear that the criminal law test conflicts with the fundamental principle of the disciplinary process, which is

“to contribute to learning and development for the individual officer concerned or for the organisation as to the reasonableness of mistakes”.

If the objective reasonableness of an officer’s mistaken belief is no longer relevant, unreasonable beliefs, however dangerous and widespread, may never be identified. Allowing unreasonable but honestly held beliefs to serve as a defence would strip away the incentive to examine, understand and remedy the factors that led officers to hold those beliefs in the first place. For public safety it is essential that unreasonable mistakes and the conditions that enabled them are identified and addressed.

Moreover, the introduction of the criminal law test would risk allowing honestly held beliefs based on prejudice or stereotyping, however unreasonable, to provide a defence following police use of force. Police use of force is continually increasing, with over 812,000 recorded uses in 2024-25, an increase of 9% on the previous year. Police complaints about use of force rarely lead to investigation by the IOPC, because most complaints are referred back to the officer’s force for investigation. Fewer still result in disciplinary proceedings, and hence the opportunity to identify training or management deficiencies to enable institutional learning and improvement is not there.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the case of W80. I reserve my position on the point that the noble Baroness made about the standards for when you decide to make a prosecution. As the Minister will know, these are very complex legal issues. I am not qualified to talk about that, and certainly not in the space of hearing the noble Baroness’s comments; I am not here to say that she is wrong. But W80—

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I did not talk about criminal prosecutions at all.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.

One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.

My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.

The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.

My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.

I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard during this short but important debate, these amendments all relate to the same matter of principle—namely, the legal standard by which an authorised firearms officer should be judged on the thankfully rare occasions when they discharge a firearm.

The Government pay tribute to our armed officers. Theirs is a difficult, dangerous and stressful job. They do it to keep us all safe, and we have a great deal for which to thank them. Of course we recognise that they often find themselves in exceptionally difficult circumstances, having to make life and death decisions in an instant. That said, there is the matter of public confidence in the police. I do not think that any of your Lordships would disagree that confidence in the police is of equal importance. I would not be doing justice to this debate if I did not recognise and mark the fact that some of our citizens feel great anxiety about the accountability of firearms officers. In the past, when there have been high-profile fatal shootings by the police, this anxiety has boiled over into anger and social unrest.

The Government’s job is to balance these factors. We must ensure that the law offers protection to our brave police officers while at the same time providing reassurance to our fellow citizens that, if officers do fire their weapons, their conduct will be rigorously scrutinised. It is only right that the public should have confidence that any officer whose actions fall below the high standards we rightly expect will be held to account in the public interest.

Our conclusion is that we should not create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population. Our reason is this: we are confident that the criminal law which covers self-defence, defence of others and the use of force in the prevention of crime already provides sufficient protection for police officers. Because of the lateness of the hour, I am not going to go through the details of this, which I had intended to do, but will move straight to the amendments.

Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, would change the law so that an authorised firearms officer who acts with disproportionate—in other words, unreasonable—force would still be guilty of an offence, but it would be manslaughter, not murder.

I want to say a few words about what the law says about how a jury must consider whether the amount of force used by the officer was reasonable, sometimes described as proportionate. While this is an objective test, if the jury is told that what the officer did in the heat of the moment, when fine judgments are difficult, was no more than they genuinely believed was necessary, even if they were mistaken in that belief, that would be strong evidence that what they did was reasonable. If the jury also considers that the officer may have done no more than was reasonable in the light of what they believed to be happening, they are not guilty of anything. In other words, the law provides a full defence.

It is unclear whether Amendment 423 is intended to replace this full defence with a partial one, or whether, as I think is the case, it is intended to work alongside it in some way. If the noble Lord’s intention is to create a partial defence, then what he is saying is that officers who use unreasonable or excessive force should be held to a different standard from the rest of the population. We cannot accept this because the Government believe that to do so would fundamentally damage confidence in the police and in the justice system.

I turn to Amendment 423A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which seeks to amend Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. As your Lordships have heard, Section 76 deals with householder cases. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make authorised firearms officers subject to the same standard as the householder confronted by an intruder. The amendment attempts to raise the threshold for when force becomes unreasonable from disproportionate to grossly disproportionate for firearms officers. In effect, this means that firearms officers could rely on the defences of self-defence, preventing crime or making a lawful arrest if they used force that was disproportionate in the circumstances, provided it was not grossly disproportionate.

For the reasons I have already given, the Government are of the strong belief that it would be wrong in principle to authorise the police to use excessive force and that this would be extremely damaging to public confidence. In any event, we do not think there is a proper comparison to be made between householders facing an unexpected intruder and trained firearms officers. The threshold was raised in householder cases to recognise the exceptional nature of being unexpectedly confronted by an intruder in one’s home. The unique stress and shock of a home invasion justifies greater legal protection, allowing a higher level of force than in other self-defence contexts. The same logic does not apply to firearms officers, who are trained and equipped to use lethal force and are deployed only in the most high-risk situations. They are subject to strict command, control and training protocols to ensure that lethal force is used only when necessary and in accordance with the current legal framework.

I turn finally to Amendment 422, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. As the noble Baroness has explained during the debate, her amendment deals not with criminal trials but with police conduct hearings. The previous Home Secretary commissioned Timothy Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford to carry out an independent police accountability rapid review because it was recognised that there was ongoing complexity and confusion, and that there were concerns that this was having an impact on recruitment and retention of these essential and much valued officers. Sir Adrian and Mr Godwin examined the matter thoroughly and heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their conclusions and recommendations, published in October 2025, were clear that the Government should change the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test.

The reviewers found that police officers need confidence and greater consistency in the disciplinary system and that this would improve fairness and public confidence. The Government have taken on board that recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes to The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Our intention is that these changes will come into force in the spring. We accept that the amendment is well intended, but I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why the Government cannot support it and, for the reasons I have given, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has spoken. There is a major issue of public trust in policing which has yet to be fully explored, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 422 withdrawn.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to a number of the 79 amendments in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, there was initially provision for judicial management of these cases, given the magnitude of the risk. The assisted dying panel was substituted as a consequence of the difficulties that were identified.

So, what is unsatisfactory about the assisted dying panel process, and why is change necessary? Despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Bill does not provide for family knowledge or involvement as a right. Surely, we do not want our people to end up in the position of the woman who heard of her mother’s death in Switzerland when she was told the ashes were in the post to her. We do not want families to discover after the event that their child, whom they are trying to support after a diagnosis of a terminal illness, having reached the grand old age of 18, has opted for physician-assisted death, leaving them no chance to intervene.

Inevitably, there will be major difficulties in providing professionals to act as panel members. We know that the lowest level of assisted dying deaths is in Oregon, where it is nearly 1%, but in Canada and the Netherlands it is nearly 6%. If only 1% of deaths here were assisted deaths, it would be 6,000 deaths a year. This is the figure referred to by Sir Nicholas Mostyn when addressing the Commons Public Bill Committee.

There are only 29,500 social workers in England and Wales, according to the impact assessment. There are quite simply not enough of them to care for and protect children and vulnerable adults now, so what element of the crucial and challenging work of child and vulnerable adult protection would be sacrificed to support the existence of assisted death panels? This is a very real question. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said consistently that it cannot support the Bill, and there is a major shortage of registered psychiatrists.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—said, the Bill requires that the legal member of the panel holds high judicial office, is a KC, etcetera. But there are currently only 107 High Court judges, 20 Family Division judges and 41 designated judges, and our KCs tend to be fairly well occupied. Nearly 104,000 children were trapped in the family court backlog during 2023. The average time for dealing with cases involving children—very important cases—is 43 weeks, and there are currently thousands of couples and nearly 20,000 children waiting for hearings. Given the delays, and despite the intervention of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I do not believe that family court judges would be available to act as legal members—yet the decisions by the panel required by the Bill must be subject to time pressure, because there is the requirement of death within six months. Even if we allowed only three hours a case, at the lowest figure of 6,000, we would need 54,000 hours of members’ professional time. If the figure was 5%, it would rise to 270,000 hours.

How is this to be funded? How are these professionals to be trained, supervised and managed? What will be the cost of the panel members and the administration of the panels? The impact assessment provides no answers to these questions. Where is the money coming from? It is not coming from savings in care, because most palliative care is actually provided by donations from the public; only 30% is funded by the state. Therefore, the system now in the Bill is simply unsafe. It provides virtually no protection for the weak and vulnerable; it is not workable.

The very extensive amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others are complex. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I welcome the introduction of the changes in the terminology of, for example, a terminal illness and lethal drugs. However, the Bill’s current panel provision would be replaced by this new system. Judges would be able—and would be most likely, I think—to appoint a medical adviser in each case, as provided for in proposed new subsection (5) of Amendment 426. That would provide additional assurance.

Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, sets out an excellent framework for judicial decision-making. It includes the consideration of six complex reports, including submissions by the applicant; evidence about diagnosis and prognosis of the illness; evidence of a specialist medical practitioner’s assessment of a mental condition; evidence about living conditions; evidence about the availability of suitable housing, effective palliative care and social care; evidence of a specialist palliative care practitioner; and evidence of people who are familiar with the applicant’s character and personality. This is the kind of evidence that would enable proper consideration to be given to this momentous decision to apply to end one’s own life with the assistance of the state—a state that has previously devoted all its resources to protecting and saving life.

If such proper evidence is to be considered in each case in which an assisted death is sought, there would be a requirement for some further 30,000 reports from specialists of various kinds as well as social work reports on a person’s living conditions. Without this type of evidence, there could be no assurance that an applicant actually satisfies every requirement of the Bill, that there has been no coercion or undue influence, or that the person has simply lost all hope of anyone helping them live out their life in peace and with dignity. There is also a major shortage of specialists in virtually every area of NHS work. Although the system proposed in the amendments in this group does not immediately provide a definite route for family and friends who fear coercion and so on, that would be required.

If there were 6,000 applications for assisted death a year, and if a judge had to gather and consider all the evidence and reach a conclusion, it would probably take him or her at least four hours—about 24,000 hours of judicial time would be required. Family courts have frequently been described as complex, inefficient and difficult to navigate for families without legal support. The PAC heard concerns that court staff, legal advisors, and Cafcass staff are

“poorly resourced or trained to support domestic abuse victims, and that their needs are not being met by the family justice process”.

Moreover, if those courts cannot identify and provide for abuse arising in the current context of current cases, how will they identify abuse in cases where a person seeking an assisted death has been subject to coercion or abuse? Yet failure to do so may well result in the state dispensing death to someone who is not making an independent and informed decision.

There is also a problem about the cost of lawyers. The current fees for the family court range from £579 to £200 per solicitor per hour. Noble Lords can calculate what this would cost a family seeking to be represented in the court. The assumption must be that this will not be publicly funded. The PAC recently published a report about access to legal aid. It states that about 24% of the population, often those most in need of legal assistance—disabled people or those living in poverty—are excluded from the remote access now provided by digital means.

These matters should have been considered in a public consultation, but there was none. There should have been an assessment of risk and cost, but there was none. If judges are to make these decisions, we need more judges. It is not enough to say that judges will deliver if we tell them to. The reality, as we know from examining and observing the operation of the courts, is that cases are delayed. There are 80,000 cases alone waiting in the criminal justice system for trial. Rape cases are being listed for hearing in 2029. How are we to care for rape victims and other litigants when we are also providing this extra urgent need to make determined applications for assisted death? I therefore ask the Minister: how do the Government propose to resource even the panels’ work. Is the intention to designate other judges who sit largely in the Crown Court? A person making an application will have six months to live, so this is going to be urgent in any situation.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are necessary and would provide far greater protection. However, if the original proposal, which gave very little protection and was secret, could not be delivered, it is difficult to envisage how judicial capacity could be found to deliver the service in a timely manner. An impact assessment is urgently needed before your Lordships can rationally make a decision on these cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I will take the advice of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and now get rid of what I was going to say, because the noble Lord, Lord Markham, has said most of it. I now have only three points to add, so I thank the noble Lord for that.

First, the big discussion is on whether it should be a court or panel. The reasons for the panel have been put, so I do not need to repeat that. The only thing I would say is that when this was discussed in the Commons, it was not about the capacity of the courts that made them make the change to a panel but about the advice they got that this would be a much better, holistic and patient-focused way of doing it. In fact, making sure that that bit was added was very much welcomed by the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers.

Secondly, the mention just now of legal aid says it all. Surely, we do not want this to be an adversarial process. It should not be argued in front of a court that way. I want to be very brief, because I am taking the advice of the noble and learned Baroness to be very brief, but we want this to be a conscientious decision and not one that is adversarial, which is why I think the panel would be so much better.

Lastly, this is not a life-or-death issue, because these people are dying. We are discussing only when they die, not whether. That is different from deciding that a baby will die who was not going to die anyway, or even someone in a permanent vegetative state. That is why I really do not agree that it is right to use the word “suicide”, rather than “assisted dying”. People are dying, and this is the issue of when they die and not whether.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Is the noble Baroness aware that we are discussing the possibility of having either a panel or a court process? The research and reports show that families and individuals have great difficulty negotiating the Family Division of the High Court and the family-designated judges processes. Legal aid may well be necessary to assist in some of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I take that to be a yes. The position the noble Lord is proposing is that the judge hears the evidence of the doctors on issues, for example, of coercion, capacity and firm and settled view, and then makes the decision. The comparison we have is between what is in the Bill—two doctors each forming a view on the terminal illness decision and the issues of capacity and whether the person has reached a voluntary decision as to whether to have an assisted death, and the panel either endorsing it by giving the certificate or rejecting it—and, as the noble Lord is suggesting, letting the court in effect decide the whole thing. I reject that view because I am absolutely satisfied, although I accept that this issue requires a lot of work and thinking about, that you are much better off having a multidisciplinary approach to somebody making an assisted death decision. It is much better to let the social worker, the psychiatrist, the doctor and the legally qualified person look at the situation and then decide whether somebody should make that decision on assisted death.

The evidence given in Committee—

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

May just continue? I will come back to the noble Baroness in a moment. This is very important—it is the critical bit of the whole thing.

There was a lot of evidence given to the Commons Committee in which this very issue was discussed. Sarah Cox, an expert, gave evidence. She said:

“The other thing that concerns me is that we are putting all these assessments on the shoulders of two doctors individually, followed up by a High Court judge. In any other clinical practice, when we are making very serious decisions, we know that shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer. In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams. I would never make these decisions independently of my team, because the perspective they bring can help me to understand things that I am not seeing”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, 28/1/25; col. 74.]


Judges are marvellous, but a number of pairs of eyes in relation to this is better.

A huge number of questions were asked as to why the sponsor in the Commons and I—

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness let me finish? I am sorry but I am not going to take interventions at this stage. I will come to the noble Baroness in a moment, but I think I should make this argument in full.

The argument is that we made the decision to change from the judge, which I initially favoured, because of pressure and advice from the Ministry of Justice. That is not right. The change was made because the evidence was very clear, and I accepted that people are better off and it is safer if one does it with a multidisciplinary panel.

What are the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has advanced for saying that we should have a court-based, not a panel-based process? First, he says that the court has experience of making analogous decisions. The type of decision he is referring to is the one the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to: the Bland case, and whether people in a permanent vegetative state should have their life support turned off. That would be of assistance, but what we are proposing in the Bill is a panel, supervised by a commissioner, devoted completely to the question of whether assisted deaths should be permitted. Yes, we would get the benefit at the very outset of the analogous decisions the court has made, but here we would have a panel devoted only to that issue, and which is bound to become more experienced in it than the courts, which are rightly dealing with a whole range of things.

Secondly, it is said that the courts would give a reasoned judgment. As was pointed out in the debate, there is a requirement in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill that the panels give reasons in writing, and that will give rise to a body of decisions being made.

Thirdly, it is said that the court is a court of record. Yes, it is a court of record, but the key thing is, who is best at making the decision? Is it better to have just a judge, or an experienced legal member, a psychiatrist and a social worker? I do not think in all honesty that the fact it is a court of record will make any difference to that.

Fourthly, it is said that you can appeal to the Court of Appeal. We are talking here about people who want an assisted death. We want a safe process; we do not want an overengineered process. In my respectful view, the idea that you have to go into a system that carries with it appeals puts too much of a burden on the people.

Fifthly, it is said that the judges have a special respect in our system, a point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The key thing is not whether the judges have respect but whether our system of assisted dying will carry respect. This is a better way of making the judgment; that is why I support it.

A final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who raised it and said it was the answer—it may have to do with the fact that it is a court of record—was that the courts have discovery powers et cetera. Yes, they do, but if the panel feels that there are areas that it is not getting to the bottom of, then of course it will not be satisfied and cannot give the certificate. For all those reasons, the panel is better than the courts. That is why the decision was made.

I will now answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan; I apologise for not answering it before.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord. The question I wanted to ask him was connected to him telling us about panels and judges. As I understand it, the three members in the legislation he has presented to the House have expertise in their own area of competence. Does he accept that the benefit of the system devised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is to bring many more disciplines—medical disciplines in particular—into the agenda? In particular, the judge would have the right to sit with the doctor, and there would be a psychiatrist’s report on the capacity et cetera of the individual, so the psychiatric issues would be taken care of. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, proposes something wider than that which the panel could provide.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I do not accept that. The position is in relation to the panel. If it wants a report from a doctor, it can get it. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to be saying that the court can ask for all these things—which of course it can—and if it thinks they are appropriate, it will do so. I assume it will not ask for them when it does not think they are necessary to the resolution of the issues. The panel can do the same and, if it does not get them, just like the court, it will have to say no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief, because many of the points have been made, but I would really like to make two points. My first point follows the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about—I hesitate to use this term—“levelling up”. We know that there is a spectrum of provision available, not just in palliative care but in all the other aspects of care that a dying patient needs, as referred to in Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I would love there to be the kind of wraparound care within the community that my noble friend Lady Gerada described, but for some patients that is not the case. So, specifying those components that should be available and making them available should be the basic right of every dying patient, particularly one who is carrying as onerous a decision as seeking an assisted death.

But I think the second, and equally important, point about this is front-loading the multidisciplinary assessment, and, ideally, having it clearly written down and held by the patient, which empowers the patient to hold that information and take it with them. Therefore, it facilitates the co-ordinating doctor, the independent doctor and the panel or judiciary process to have available that information from the team who know the patient best, so that they are not having to delay the process by scurrying around in hospital notes or seeking additional information late on in the process, when the patient will inevitably have made a decision, potentially with their family, and a delay due to missing information would be unbearable. So, front-loading is absolutely key to streamlining this process throughout.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to nine amendments in this group and I declare my interest as an unpaid trustee of a hospital which has a hospice attached to it.

We are very fortunate in your Lordships’ House to have among us distinguished doctors who have spoken with great experience and understanding of the need for access to expert palliative care when a person faces death from terminal illness. For many people, particularly those in care homes, such palliative care is simply not available. I think of my own mother, who died just three years ago and was in a care home, and for whom such care was provided either by the GP or by paramedics who came and administered morphine—that was not expert palliative care. Many people, if this Bill is passed, will be in exactly the same position as my mother, unless there is change to the current systems. Expert palliative care, as has been said, is unavailable in many parts of the country, and so it is not enough to know that expert palliative care could be available, it must be available. That is the most significant thing.

Police, Prison and Probation Officers

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am pleased to know that we have a race action plan that we are working with police constables; it is really important that we recruit fantastic people and make sure that we represent the communities we serve.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the Minister said that there was an extra £1 billion coming into policing this year. However, not one penny of that £1 billion will go to Northern Ireland because policing is a devolved matter. Given that the Northern Ireland policing budget is significantly eroded by paying out for dealing with legacy in Northern Ireland, when will the Government create ring-fenced funding to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, which will then allow Northern Ireland’s police to serve the community in the way in which they wish—properly staffed and properly resourced?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will pass that question on to the Northern Ireland Secretary responsible for legacy issues and write to the noble Baroness.

“Hillsborough Law”

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Government have said that they want to introduce a duty of candour, with criminal consequences for those who do not live up to that standard. But it is part of a greater whole, which is the reason why the legislation has not come forward as we would have liked and why we are undertaking further talks with the parties I have mentioned.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in 2021, following a very lengthy process, which was exacerbated by prevarication, obfuscation and failure to deliver materials to the panel, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I chaired, recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law-enforcement agencies to those that they serve, subject only to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation? The response of His Majesty’s Government, in June 2023, was that the Home Office was reviewing this recommendation and working with HMICFRS on the introduction of a statutory duty of candour. Will the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House the current position of the Government?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, the Government are very clear: we remain fully committed to bringing legislation forward at pace, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply with that duty of candour.