Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness O'Loan]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that no impact assessment was conducted in relation to clause 246, and that therefore the House has not been able to assess its potential effects on vulnerable persons, women’s health, criminal law, and policing”.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the effect of Clause 246 of this Bill is to decriminalise abortion at any stage of the baby’s gestation where the baby’s life is terminated by the mother, but in no other circumstances. It is a matter of concern that we find ourselves today passing a Bill which contains Clause 246, given the dearth of information upon which noble Lords were asked to make a decision—hence my regret amendment.

The Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation states that an impact assessment is a vital tool to help Parliament understand the

“consequences of a proposed intervention

and to identify the

“associated risks of a proposal that might have an impact on the public … and wider society”.

Undeniably, Clause 246 required an impact assessment to identify the consequences and risks. That did not happen.

It is possible to be both neutral and objective and to respect conscience while considering policy implications and outcomes. This clause originated as a late Back-Bench amendment. As others have said, there was not enough scrutiny in the other place, or indeed here. Last week, many Peers were denied the opportunity to speak to amendments which they had signed or supported on this most fundamental and important of issues—the life and death of the baby and the danger to its mother.

We have been unable to evaluate adequately the operational impact of Clause 246 on policing. We lack clear evidence on how the removal of existing deterrents will affect the investigation of genuine cases of infanticide or the detection of women being coerced by a third party into dangerous late-term abortion. We have not been able properly to assess healthcare implications. There will surely have to be guidance issued to those who respond to a request for help in connection with such an abortion, which may turn out to require investigation as a criminal offence may have been committed by a third party, be that a coercive partner or a family member or other who does not want any child, or in some cases, unfortunately, a girl child, to be born.

During the debate, I asked the question: how is the mother to kill her child at these late stages so that she can abort it? I never received an answer. It seems to me that the Government must be aware that, if a woman decides to abort a baby herself after 24 weeks, she may need help to do so. Do the Government intend to publicise the fact that it will still be an offence to help a mother abort her baby in these circumstances?

Do they intend to highlight the fact that heavy bleeding, infection, damage to the womb and sepsis are all possible consequences of an abortion? What of the risks of prescription or over-the-counter drug overdoses as a woman seeks to abort her baby and to control her pain and that of her unborn child?

Paramedics responding to a 999 call where a woman is haemorrhaging or where a baby is stuck in the birth canal will have to try to save the life of both mother and baby, unless the baby is already dead. But there are a few precious moments when a baby who does not breathe automatically at birth can be encouraged to live and may well do so. What is the paramedic to do? Presumably, if the woman gets to hospital before delivering, it will be incumbent on nurses and doctors to attempt to save not only the mother but the child. Surely the child will not be left to die uncared for, as happens when babies are born alive after abortion. Guidance will be needed. What additional services—medical and mental health services—might need to be provided in these cases?

Finally, do we need some provision on what the mother can do with her little dead baby? Is she able to bury it? Can somebody else bury it? How will the police be able to determine whether a baby was born alive and killed after death if the baby’s body has been disposed of? What if the trauma of delivering the child is such that the mother is unable to bury the child? What if she was subject to coercion and is torn by grief? What can she do? What is to happen?

Today, I am sending an open parliamentary letter to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Health from some 80 Peers and MPs, articulating these and other concerns. These issues should surely concern His Majesty’s Government. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to take these matters forward to address these life and death issues?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, regrets the failure to conduct an impact assessment in relation to Clause 246. Yet, as we have heard, the clause that decriminalises abortion up to birth will have the gravest of consequences for viable babies—now protected in law—for their mothers’ health and for our society. Including it in this Bill will render the Bill notorious.

Constitutionally, it is wrong. Laws, particularly on controversial and grave matters, are subject to two important conditions in Britain’s constitution. First, they must have a popular mandate, a condition that militated against the arbitrary exercise of executive power for hundreds of years, even before the 20th century brought universal adult suffrage, as Parliaments and leaders respected a popular wish. Secondly, they must meet the more formal requirements now in place for pre-election announcements, manifestos and pre-legislative consultation, including an impact assessment, detailed parliamentary scrutiny in both Chambers, revision, modification and, finally, some sort of legislative agreement.

Clause 246 is a highly controversial measure. Arguably, its consequences are the most serious of any legislation that this Government have passed. It has had neither a popular mandate nor parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 246 has been tacked on to a government Bill by a group of militant abortionists determined to manipulate parliamentary rules. It has had only 46 minutes of debate in the House of Commons. I am afraid it plays to the weakness of a Prime Minister orchestrating the factions of a divided Labour Party as he seeks to stay in power and fend off rival challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, we are almost there. I want to respond to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. She had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Biggar and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned the Labour Party. There are Members on my side of the House who voted on both sides of the abortion debate. It is not a party-political issue. It was a free vote on this issue, certainly from the Government’s perspective and, I think, that of all parties. I reiterate that the Government were entirely neutral on the proposal that was put in Committee and later on Report that now forms Clauses 246 and 247. It is an entirely neutral government position.

I note the comments of the three noble Lords who spoke in support of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I also note those of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I echo what they said in an entirely neutral way. We have to respect the fact that the House of Commons passed that proposal quite considerably and that after many hours of debate this House came to the same conclusion. The Government remain neutral, but that is the position.

We are now looking at the implications of that. The Government have always said that should Parliament pass any abortion amendments, they will ensure the safe and effective implementation of those provisions. This includes any costs associated with the implementation of this provision and this Bill. There are existing processes in the spending review and in future spending reviews to identify funding and around implementation. The Government remain neutral, but I have to say to all Members of the House that both Houses have spoken and that is the position that we find ourselves in today.

Whatever noble Lords’ personal views on the provisions in Part 16, we should not set aside the other parts of the Bill. There are a number of areas of agreement between all sides of the House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that three amendments were accepted by the Government on Report. We will look at some of the amendments that this House passed and their implications when the Bill returns to the House of Commons after the Recess.

At the end of the day, I am proud of this Bill. I am proud of its position to protect children from sexual abuse. I am proud of the action we have taken on online harm. I am proud of the action on preventing violence against women and girls. I am proud of the action on young men and knife crime. I am particularly proud of the long campaign that my union raised on shop workers and assaults. I am proud of the issues on communities and anti-social behaviour. I am proud of this Bill, and for that reason I commend that this Bill do now pass. With due respect—I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, today, and I understand where she is coming from—I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. If she does, I am proud of this Bill as it stands. I am neutral on the issue of abortion on behalf of the Government, but I ask this House to pass the Bill.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for speaking to me earlier today. He talked about the cost implications of the Bill, and there are many, but I am not sure that anybody knows what the cost implications of Clause 246 might be. Be that as it may, my amendment to the Motion was to draw to the attention of the House the fact that things need to be done to let people carry out the jobs for which they are responsible and to help women in this most desperate situation. I do not intend to move the amendment to a vote. I thank those who spoke. We deliberately decided that we would not ask a lot of people to speak and that we would ask people not to speak so as not to delay the House in its other deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 392 in my name is about fairness, discipline and humanity.

First, misconduct investigations that drift on for months and years are damaging to everyone involved—the officer, the family, the complainant and public confidence in the system. Secondly, where these cases run on endlessly, the consequences can be severe. Long investigations place huge strain on mental health and, in the worst cases, such prolonged uncertainty has been linked to suicide. That alone should make this House pause and ask whether the current system is working as it should. Thirdly, I want to stress that this amendment does not block proper investigation and does not touch criminal matters. It simply says that, after 12 months, there should be independent scrutiny by a legally qualified person so that cases can move on properly and an officer can either be brought back into service or removed from the service without delay. Finally, swift justice is a matter for all involved. It matters for the innocent officer who should not be left in limbo. It matters for the complainants who deserve prompt and credible outcomes. Justice delayed helps no one; this amendment would bring greater urgency, greater accountability and a greater sense of fairness to the police disciplinary system.

Morale in the police force, particularly in the Met, is very low and one of the things that officers continually point to is the length of investigations when an officer is accused of something. This is not to say whether the officer is innocent or not—that is a whole other affair—it is the length of the investigation. If you speak to any of your local bobbies, particularly if they are an officer, they are likely to tell you they are considering leaving. When you probe a bit deeper, this question of investigations always comes up. One of the major roles of this Government now has to be to improve police morale by doing the right thing and making the whole system fairer.

I come from the Black community, the community arguably most over and under policed simultaneously in this country. If we are to have a police force that can actually care for the people who have the most interaction with the police, we need to raise their morale. I commend this amendment to the House. It could be a very good step in the right direction to make these investigations fair and to raise police morale.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 393A in my name seeks to codify the Supreme Court decision in W(80) which relates to police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. The amendment relates to the test used to determine whether an officer misconducted themselves when he or she used force in self-defence. The amendment would place in statute the current legal position that an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others faced an immediate danger and, crucially, that where that belief is mistaken, the mistake must also be an objectively reasonable one.

I have retabled this amendment to encourage further consideration by the Government of their decision to depart from this test following Sir Adrian Fulford’s rapid review. Under their proposal, an officer would be able to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if the mistake was unreasonable. This is a significant shift, and one intended to be made by statutory instrument and without public consultation.

Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments made in Committee; however, I continue to believe firmly that the current civil law test is the right one in the context of misconduct proceedings. Of course, as many have rightly emphasised, it is essential that officers required to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations are treated fairly, but fairness to officers must be balanced with the equally important obligations of learning, improvement and accountability of officers. The current test already achieves that balance. On the previous references to delays in the misconduct proceedings arena, I would say that these matters should be addressed by review, rather than removing the possibility of misconduct proceedings.

It is important to be clear that this amendment does not concern the criminal law. It does not touch on criminal prosecutions, as was suggested during Committee. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with respect, the reason that disciplinary proceedings await the outcome of criminal proceedings is that this is what the police ask. I chair the safeguarding service in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and in many cases the police will say to us, “Please stop: do nothing”, and the policy is that we stop and do nothing until the police say we can do something. That is an important reservation.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

May I address that simple point? To be clear, in these cases, the IOPC is the investigating body. It is in full possession of the information it has gained—interviews, evidence from the scene, et cetera—so it is in a good position to query criminal charge or, at that stage, query misconduct charge, but it waits until the end of the whole process to instigate the misconduct charge that it could have instigated at the beginning, indicating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it may be an employment issue. I find it confusing that it waits until the outcome of a criminal case, where it will have had no reasoned explanation for the jury’s decision—it would in a civil case, but not in a jury case, because no reason is offered. That is my point. It can be different in other professions, I understand, because they did not have the benefit of the investigators deciding what to put forward to the CPS.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

As police ombudsman, I was faced with exactly this problem, and I knew that our criminal proceedings had to be dealt with first.

To continue, what we are talking about here is the standard to be applied in misconduct proceedings. These proceedings exist in large part not just to ensure accountability but to enable forces to reflect and learn. They also enable the police to demonstrate that they take seriously situations involving the use of force, even when that force has been held not to be criminal. Despite that, the use of force must be necessary and proportionate.

This has broader implications. A disciplinary system that cannot scrutinise unreasonable mistakes risks undermining public confidence in policing. Retaining the civil law test supports public confidence by ensuring that unreasonable errors of judgment are open to scrutiny. Removing that scrutiny would weaken the learning function of misconduct proceedings, pose risks to public safety and give the impression that unreasonable policing errors lie beyond the review of accountability. That would have an impact, inevitably, by diminishing trust in policing.

For these reasons, I would be very grateful if the Minister could indicate what steps the Government are willing to take to address the serious concerns raised about moving to the criminal standard for self-defence in misconduct proceedings, particularly in the absence of wider public consultation or engagement with the communities most affected by police use of force. I am grateful to Justice, Inquest, the National Black Police Association and StopWatch for their help and support in this amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments all address the same question: how we protect the public from unlawful force while treating officers fairly when they carry out dangerous duties on our behalf. From these Benches, we start from two simple principles: there must be clear, consistent standards of accountability; and we must not drift into a two-tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.

On Amendment 391, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we have particular concerns. It would, in effect, close off the possibility of independent scrutiny by the IOPC once a criminal court had acquitted an officer. That might sound attractive in the interests of family, but it risks confusing two distinct questions: whether conduct meets the high criminal threshold for conviction and whether it meets the professional standards we rightly expect from those who wield state power.

We are more sympathetic to Amendment 392 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. Misconduct cases that drift for years are bad for families seeking answers, for complainants whose evidence fades, for taxpayers funding prolonged suspensions and, not least, for officers left in limbo. The broad thrust of the amendment—that investigations need clear expectations and real grip—is one we support, while recognising that complex cases sometimes need longer and that rigid timelines can carry risks.

Amendment 393A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, seeks to put beyond doubt the test that should apply in police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. We support the aim of aligning those proceedings with the approach of the Supreme Court in W80 as a modest but important safeguard for bereaved families and communities who need to see that internal standards reflect the law as articulated by the highest court. If the Government are now moving in that direction through secondary legislation, so much the better, but Parliament is entitled to a clear, on-the-record explanation of the test, not simply an assurance that it will be sorted out behind the scenes.

Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on an excellent and very informative maiden speech. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton, as well as the members of the JCHR, on producing this excellent report and securing the debate. It will not come as a surprise to noble Lords that I support all the recommendations in this report.

The JCHR has articulated clearly the problems caused by TNR—a growing threat to democratic values, the rule of law and freedom of expression. Foreign policy decisions and international trade partnerships are often made without sufficient consideration of the TNR record of perpetrator states, which risks undermining the UK’s credibility as a leader on global human rights issues and emboldening these authoritarian regimes to escalate their TNR activities.

The JCHR has called for a definition of TNR, and we need it, but I think we recognise it—in state-directed cross-border actions to coerce, intimidate, conduct surveillance on, kidnap, prosecute or even assassinate critics, dissidents and diaspora opponents. All this, of course, is in the wider context of the torture, harassment, intimidation and even execution of diaspora family members who live in the country in question. Noble Lords have spoken of Russia and China. I want to speak briefly about Iran and the impact of its TNR activities in the UK.

The Supreme Leader, as he calls himself, Ayatollah Khamenei, the IRGC and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Iran are very active. They utilise the resources of diplomatic missions and embassies across the world. I give the example of the conviction of Asadollah Assadi, an Iranian diplomat who was convicted in Belgium in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempting to bomb a gathering of the Iranian opposition coalition, the NCRI, in support of a free Iran, which was held in Paris in 2018 and attended by Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place. They use various criminal methods and work assiduously to undermine any protest against the regime; they arrest and prosecute dual nationals on fabricated charges so they can leverage releases of regime operatives and convicted diplomats; and they have developed extensive and co-ordinated transnational repression.

Last July, the ISC issued a report which said that Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security that should not be underestimated and is persistent and, crucially, unpredictable. Since 2022, the previous major rising in Iran, there has been a sharp rise in physical attacks and kidnapping or assassination attempts. Our security services and police have stopped at least 15 murders or kidnapping attempts against British nationals or UK-based individuals since 2022. The threat to us has increased sharply, and there is now an acute national security and human rights concern.

The designation of Iran and Russia as countries on the advanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme is evidence of the threat posed by TNR originating from these countries. Anyone working for or directed by the Iranian state is at peril if they carry out such activities without compliance. The JCHR has recognised the need to support efforts to elevate TNR as a priority on the UN agenda, to promote co-ordinated international action against its use by authoritarian regimes and to ensure information and data sharing on TNR with like-minded countries in fora such as the Council of Europe, Interpol, the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, the OSCE and the UN.

In January, the people of Iran rose up. We know that tens of thousands of them have been killed, including women and children. We should use the powers which are available to us. We should close the Iranian embassy in London, where there is evidence of, for example, co-ordinated attempts to silence Iranian dissidents. We should work with allied states to condemn Iranian state threats. I do not know, as other noble Lords have said, why we are allowing China to build this embassy in our country. This should not happen. We should adopt a more positive approach to sanctions, perhaps particularly against Members of your Lordships’ House. We have heard, and I have read, the Government’s response to the report and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how long it will be before the IRGC is proscribed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to work with China. We will challenge it at all times and trade with it when we need to. It is important that we hold standards of democracy to account across the world.

I am conscious of time—

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I do not want to detain the House and I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just said, I think, that he will keep us informed about the proscription issue. This has been said for months and months. Can he please give us some idea of when there might be some actual news?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not in the interests of the UK’s security or the security of the individuals we are trying to protect to give a running commentary on the issue of proscription. This House will be informed if any proscription decision is ever taken on any individual, country or organisation. That is the process we have followed recently and we will continue to do so, but, unfortunately, I cannot give a running commentary on whether, when and how we will consider these matters. We keep them under review and, in the event of a decision being taken, I will be held to account in this House for that decision, as will Ministers in the House of Commons.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

Can the Minister tell me this, then? Jonathan Hall produced a proposal for dealing with the issue. Is that being accepted by the Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will respond to the Jonathan Hall review very shortly. Again, Members of this House will be able to hold me to account for the response the Government give, but I cannot give a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on issues of national security in the way in which the noble Baroness tempts me.

I am conscious of time. This has been a very fruitful and useful debate for us. I will look at Hansard in detail when it is produced and, if there are issues I wish to respond to further, I will write individually to Members. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate today. I hope that we can continue our discussions on how we keep people in this country safe from transnational oppression and how we support the security of the United Kingdom.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

That is true as far as that goes. However, in the wider context, the principal objective of that legislation is not to enable people to commit crimes but to prevent people being subject to endless civil and criminal litigation that may arise from their duties as representatives of public bodies, be they the security services, the police et cetera. So I think that the noble Baroness is being slightly unfair to the Ministers at the time who put through that legislation. What she outlined was clearly a corollary of passing that legislation, but it was not the principal reason, as I am sure she will concede.

The reason I wanted to speak is to interrogate the details of this amendment. Looking at paragraph (2B)(b) of the proposed new clause, I wonder what is meant by

“otherwise seeking to discredit, the person, people or group subject to the authorised surveillance operation”.

That seems a very wide-ranging paragraph and a recipe for much litigation in the future. Should it eventually be found on the face of the enacted Crime and Policing Bill, the way that it will be interpreted will give rise to a situation where the police, the security services and others are much more reluctant to enter into long-term surveillance of the kind I discussed earlier in seeking to thwart a terrorist plot, because of that quite wide-ranging and open paragraph.

Generally speaking, the noble Baroness has made a very fine point and I agree with much of what she said, but I genuinely do not understand the point of that paragraph. If it is a way of describing an agent provocateur, I understand that—and, because she is a prominent lawyer, she will no doubt tell me where that is found in other pieces of legislation. However, currently, that paragraph could be misinterpreted, and it will circumscribe the capacity of the security services and the police to do their job and protect individuals. For those reasons, while I am not necessarily against the amendment, I would like further clarification if possible.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have long had a responsibility for the investigation of matters involving CHISs and I fully accept that many people who agree to become CHISs do so in the public interest, because, without their activities, the intelligence that they are able to collect would be unavailable. I also accept that undercover activity of this kind has long been a feature of criminal investigation.

Nevertheless, while the CHIS Act, which was passed in 2021, provided a very necessary statutory framework for the operation of CHISs, because that was previously absent, it does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse, particularly where such acts risk falling beyond the scope of the authorisation of the CCA, particularly where they are well concealed by those committing such crimes and not reporting back properly.

Regrettably, like many others, I have seen repeated abuses of authorisations of CHISs. I have also seen CHISs acting way beyond the scope of their authorisations, sometimes with the knowledge of those who manage them, to the extent that they value the CHIS more than dealing with unauthorised and perhaps criminal conduct by the CHIS.

When the CHIS is not an undercover officer—and, of course, not all CHISs are undercover state employees—there is less control and potentially a higher risk. Unlike in the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we in Northern Ireland have been able to expose unlawful activities of CHISs to bring them to account. So it can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot answer for all the cases that have gone wrong; indeed, I cannot answer for any cases that have gone wrong—it is not my place to do that. I can say, however, that it very much depends on good leadership and good supervision, and all of that comes down to good training. It has always been my view that training is at the core of all of this.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that statutory blanket immunity from civil or criminal action acts as a barrier for people who are affected by such unlawful activities? It is a significant concern because of the impact that barrier has on those who might need to bring such action, and who might have difficulty getting funding or access to the necessary support. Then, there is an ongoing huge impact on trust in the police.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Trust in the police in this area is essential. I am not sure I quite get the gist of what the noble Baroness is asking, but I am very happy to discuss it outside the Chamber later, if that would help.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

It was about statutory blanket immunity—the extent of the immunity.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Again, I would have to have a look at that before I give an answer. I am very happy to discuss it with the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her amendment. The discussion today has taken me back to my time in Northern Ireland, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence. As Counter-Terrorism Minister in 2009, I had to see the product of that intelligence, so I understand the value of that. I also understand that the amendment seeks to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by removing the legal protections for covert human intelligence sources who have been tasked by the police and a limited number of other public authority agencies, such as the intelligence services, with engaging in specific, tightly defined, pre-approved criminal conduct. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to remove protections for CHISs engaged in such authorised criminal conduct where it engages the offences of encouraging or assisting an offender under the Serious Crime Act, or seeks to discredit those who are subject to a particular investigation. I understand the motive behind what my noble friend has brought forward.

I begin by addressing the undercover police inquiry, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I took office in July 2024, and the undercover policing inquiry had operated for nine years at that stage. It is clear that the historical allegations under consideration by the inquiry are absolutely appalling. Such behaviour should rightly be condemned. The inquiry is ongoing, and we await the findings and any recommendations, but let me assure all those who have spoken that I am now responsible in the Home Office for managing inquiries, and I wish to see recommendations as soon as possible, for the very reasons noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned today.

The current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed, and since 2013 enhanced safeguards have been put in place, but the Government want to see the lessons of that inquiry and consider them as soon as possible.

Noble Lords may recall the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, which has been referred to today, and the revised CHIS code of practice of 2022, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which were subject to debate and approval both here and in the House of Commons. This scrutiny includes consideration of similar amendments proposed by my noble friend at the time.

I say to noble Lords generally, including my noble friend Lord Hacking, that CHIS play a crucial part in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from many serious crimes, including terrorism, drugs and firearms offences, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who do it do so at such personal risk to themselves. I noted and welcome the support from the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson—I will take the support where I can get it. It needs to be properly authorised and specifically defined criminality by the state, and they do so knowing that they will not be penalised for carrying out that activity, particularly by those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity, who may otherwise pursue legal action against them.

It is important that we place on record that CHIS authorisations and criminal conduct authorisations under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be validly given only where the proposed conduct is necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act. Valid authorisations make activity carried out in relation to them “lawful for all purposes”, providing protection from criminal and civil liability. However—I know my noble friend knows this—should a court find that the authorisation does not satisfy these necessary requirements, or should the conduct go beyond what is permitted by the authorisation, it will not be rendered lawful.

Given the significance of these powers, it is important to note that there are independent and effective avenues of oversight and redress, and that these exist—I know that colleagues who have spoken know this, but it is worth putting on the record again—via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anyone who believes they have been subject to improper activity by a public authority using covert investigatory powers.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the recording of CCAs in a number of cases most recently, which appears to indicate a deterioration in that area.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always interested in what Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, says. From my perspective he provides robust oversight, which includes comments that he has made, and he and his inspectors pay particular attention to that criminal conduct authorisation. He produces annual reports—I know that they are time-lagged, for reasons that are self-evident with any annual report. In his annual report in 2024, he identified

“good levels of compliance for the authorisation and management”

of police undercover operatives and noted that the quality and content of police undercover operative criminal conduct authorisations was found to be of a “good standard”. I will always look and listen to what he says because we have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are dealt with for the product of that CHIS to help protect the public at large.

I assure my noble friend and in this context the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that the CHIS cannot be authorised to entrap people—which is one of the objectives of her amendment. Any such entrapment would be in conflict with Article 6 of the ECHR—as my noble friend knows, we are committed to maintaining our obligations under the ECHR—which protects the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, I point my noble friend to the publicly available Undercover Policing: Authorised Professional Practice, which states in clear terms that an undercover operative

“must not act as an agent provocateur”.

I hope that satisfies my noble friend on that point.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that the 550 Iranian citizens who have been sanctioned by this Government would say that we have acted slowly. They are facing travel bans and financial freezing of their assets, and those 550 individuals known to this Government have a marker against them. I do not think we are taking it in the way in which the noble Lord described. We have summoned the ambassador, we have made representations at a UK level to the foreign office in Iran this week, and we will continue to take action. It is important that we do, because the Iranian regime is a malign force that is taking appalling actions in Iran and is a threat to nationals elsewhere in Europe and the United Kingdom. We have to take action on that, and we will, but proscription is an issue still under review.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the IRGC in Iran is accountable only to Ayatollah Khamenei and nobody else, and that in the past two weeks it has killed more than 3,000 people, according to the estimations of the Iranian resistance? Is he also aware that Erfan Soltani, who is 26 years old and was taken from his house six days ago, is due to be executed tomorrow? When the Iranian ambassador comes, could he express the strongest condemnation of this proposed action and call for it not to happen and for there not to be a mass execution of those who are protesting for freedom and democracy in Iran at the present time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s long-standing position that we are opposed to capital punishment. I will make sure that her remarks in relation to the individual, whom I am aware of because of press reports in the last few hours, are drawn to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. My noble friend the Minister for the Foreign Office is next to me, and she will be able to assess what and how representations are made to the Iranians in that respect.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, it is almost absurdly challenging to try to speak on a Bill of 427 pages, 203 clauses and 21 schedules in four minutes. The Bill is extremely wide. It ranges across multiple offences, creating multiple new criminal offences, and we will need to determine inter alia whether they have sufficient clarity, whether they disproportionately limit our fundamental freedoms and whether they may lead to unintended consequences. Clause 185(3) is a case in point. And we will need to consider the very real resource implications of what we propose.

I want to concentrate on Clause 191, though there are many others I would want to talk to. This clause was passed after only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate in the other place. It was not a manifesto commitment. It constitutes a very significant change to our law on abortion. It carries with it enormous risks to women who might consequently think that aborting a baby up to birth will be safe in these circumstances, doing so without medical help.

Dr Caroline Johnson MP explained in the other place that she works as an NHS consultant paediatrician and has cared for and held babies in her hands from 21 weeks and six days gestation right through to term. She said:

“I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival”.


She went on to explain how an abortion is achieved in the later stages of pregnancy, saying that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy is not a suitable or safe medical intervention in later pregnancy. She said:

“If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 309.]


That is the essence of the challenge we face here. We must scrutinise a clause that, under current law, would enable a woman who has secured medication to end a pregnancy under the pills by post scheme—which is supposed to be used only up to 10 weeks—to take this medication right up to birth in a non-clinical setting where she would have no professional medical support, despite the fact that, as Johnson said, she is at greater risk of complications. The clause does not give her any protection other than that against prosecution—but prosecution is the least important issue. What is profoundly important is the woman’s safety.

Even at earlier stages of gestation, there may be need for surgical intervention to remove a dead baby. How might a woman achieve an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy? Essentially, as I understand it, it will be by taking abortifacient medication which is neither suitable nor safe, or by acquiring potassium chloride by some means. But how could the potassium chloride be administered? It has to be injected into the baby’s heart, using ultrasound guidance, to cause cardiac arrest and death to the baby. That is not the end of the process; the baby must be delivered. During childbirth, specific drugs are administered and offered for pain management and the prevention of things such as haemorrhage and other complications. None of these would be available to this mother.

Most women who have experienced miscarriage or childbirth will probably agree that, if proper medical help is not available, it is terrifying. Things can go so terribly wrong: for example, babies can get stuck in the birth canal, which will eventually lead to the need for an intervention, whether by caesarean section, forceps or vacuum extraction. There is a serious risk that a mother whose baby gets stuck may die if the baby is not removed. At the very least, she may suffer terrible pain or multiple serious consequences to her own health and her future childbearing capacity.

We are left, then, with a situation in which your Lordships are being asked to legislate for abortion to birth without medical help, because any medical practitioner who helped would be subject to prosecution. If this provision is passed, women will think that aborting their own babies will be a safe thing to do, simply because it is lawful. This clause is redolent with danger to women. Can the Minister tell us exactly how the Government think women might seek to end a full-term pregnancy, and how they might be protected against the potentially catastrophic consequences of aborting and delivering a baby without medical help? This clause is too dangerous to women to remain in the Bill.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

2nd reading
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.