IPP Prisoners: Recall System

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for welcoming our decision to bring forward legislation to end IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. A further announcement will be made later this year. We are actively working on the right approach to ending the IPP sentence once and for all, but also to put in place a careful and planned approach to recalls. Of course, we want to do the right thing and our approach is one of principle, not just convenience.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, when an IPP prisoner is recalled to prison, they usually spend at least two years or more in prison—so it is effectively a resentencing exercise, but by a probation officer, not a judge. Should they not at least have been charged with an offence by a police officer, rather than merely exhibiting behaviour which, in the view of a probation officer, might lead to an offence?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

As I have said, we do need recall provisions: there must be some jeopardy if offenders break the conditions of their licence. On the specific point about the time it takes, we have addressed this, partly by what I said earlier, namely that decisions are now agreed by senior decision-makers. We introduced reforms in the Victims and Prisoners Act that reduced the number of IPPs on licence in the community by 936 and—this is the really important point—we are starting to use the risk-assessed recall review, and that has led to the re-release of 61 IPP prisoners many months before their parole hearing would have been scheduled.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, coming towards the end of this debate, I will not repeat points made in the truly excellent speeches we have heard across the House. I am going to focus on a slightly different aspect, which is none the less very relevant to the spirit of the Bill and merits becoming part of the letter of it. The Bill will impose a duty on authorities to

“act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries”.

They will be statutorily required to act with accountability and openness. The Bill applies to government Ministers and government departments, but there is one respect in which the Government will not be required to act with such candour, transparency and accountability, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Despite the vast sums of taxpayers’ money spent on statutory and non-statutory inquiries, the Government are not required to be open with the public or give reasons if they decide not to implement inquiry recommendations.

The UK has spent at least £1.5 billion on completed inquiries since 1990, with active ongoing inquiries continuing to cost taxpayers upwards of £200 million a year. These are eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money. How can a Government be free to spend millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of pounds of taxpayers’ money on an inquiry initiated because of “public concern”, and then be under no obligation even to give reasons to the public for rejecting its recommendations? The NAO has estimated that 55% of inquiry recommendations are not accepted by the Government, or, somewhat equivocally, are “accepted in principle” but with no recorded follow-up. This is extraordinary when an inquiry’s recommendations are made on the basis of months or years of painstaking evidence-gathering to establish the facts and hear from experts.

For the Government then to be able to hold back the reasons for declining to accept the inquiry’s recommendations demonstrates a lack of accountability which is entirely at odds with this Public Office (Accountability) Bill now before us. Let us compare recommendations in prevention of future deaths reports issued by coroners. The Government are under a statutory duty to respond within 56 days and to give reasons if they choose not to implement them. Like inquests, inquiries are also often initiated because of events which have resulted in fatalities, so there is no good reason why there should be this disparity with coroners’ prevention of future deaths reports.

Our Solicitor-General seems to be of a similar mind. At Report in the other place, just a week or so before he was appointed, he tabled amendments to the Bill requiring a review of the merits of a new independent oversight body to collate, analyse and follow up on the conclusions and recommendations of inquiries and inquests to improve implementation of them. He said,

“At present, there is a critical gap in accountability between the issuing of a report or recommendation and its eventual implementation … There needs to be candour and transparency in how public authorities respond to, and act on, findings and recommendations … otherwise, these costly, lengthy legal processes are futile”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; cols. 824-25.]


In 2024, the House of Lords Select Committee on inquiries, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made a similar recommendation and suggested a new Joint Select Committee of Parliament which would publish inquiry reports and government responses and monitor the implementation of recommendations. It is a point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. That committee also recommended that the Government be under a duty to give reasons for not implementing inquiry recommendations. In a Bill about openness and accountability in relation to inquiries, the duty to give such reasons should be front and centre. The public should at the very least be entitled to know why the Government have not implemented particular recommendations. It is not asking much.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if IPP prisoners beyond their tariff had been sentenced to a determinate term, which they would have been if they had had the good fortune to have been convicted on or after Monday 3 December 2012 and not before that date, they would have been released years ago?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is possible that some of these offenders may have been given a discretionary life sentence and therefore would still be subject to the parole process and therefore still in prison if they had not the met the statutory release test. It is also possible that some of these offenders may have been given standard determinate sentences and therefore could have been released by now. However, all IPP offenders are subject to review by the independent Parole Board, which has, in some cases repeatedly, found them unsafe to be released.

Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in this debate. In a world where so-called “strong men” are ruling with tyranny and anarchy around the globe, in total disregard of the rules-based international order, we should consider ourselves hugely fortunate to live in a country where compliance with the rule of law is still considered important. The Constitution Committee’s report is an invaluable reminder of the central part the rule of law plays, or should play, in the way our constitution works in practice.

Because the rule of law is so critical, and compliance—or non-compliance—with it has consequences for all of us, I am going to start at the very end of the committee’s report, which recommends a “huge improvement” in the way it is taught as part of citizenship education. That point has already been made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I am not going to repeat the points that they have made, albeit that was the first part of my speech—that is one of the hazards of coming towards the end of the pecking order.

I should declare an interest, since my Private Members’ Bill would require citizenship to be taught by trained teachers at all the key stages of the national curriculum. I will elaborate on why citizenship education is so important. Engaging our young people with the constitution will help to combat their apathy towards politics and politicians—a point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made earlier. Recent surveys reveal that they feel deeply disconnected from the political establishment, and that some are even disillusioned with democracy itself, feeling that politicians largely ignore their needs. Perhaps this explains why only 37% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted in the last general election.

Part of the problem is that, as ONS statistics show, there is a low level of trust in the political parties. This carries the danger that our young people will be drawn to a more authoritarian system and to populism, as is happening in countries such as the USA, the Netherlands and Germany, among others. This was the warning from the noble Baroness, Lady May, in her memorable Lord Speaker’s Lecture last year. One reason why there is scepticism about the political establishment is that parties do not keep the promises they make. As Lord Bingham said in his definition of the rule of law—which was quoted by the committee—Ministers, in whatever party, must exercise their powers for the purpose for which they are conferred. To my mind, that includes not just the well-known Padfield principle in public law but keeping faith with undertakings. Breaking promises undermines our democracy and leads to the political turmoil we have seen over the last 10 years, where the only stable thing in No. 10 has been Larry the cat.

There are many examples over both Conservative and Labour Administrations, but I want to point to Henry VIII clauses. Shortly after Labour came into office, we were told by the Attorney-General, in an impressive Bingham Lecture on the rule of law, that there was a need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation and the use of Henry VIII powers, since it raises real questions about how we are governed and therefore affects each and every one of us on a daily basis. We were told the Government would lead by example, yet—through no fault of the Attorney-General—Henry VIII clauses are “increasingly being … used” by departments

“to make policy that should more appropriately be made by primary legislation”—

the committee’s words, not mine. Governments, of any colour, who fail to deliver on what they have said undermine trust in our democracy, which is inextricably linked to the rule of law.

As we know, Henry VIII clauses can be used to amend primary legislation, but, like all SIs, they are subject to significantly less scrutiny than primary legislation. As we know, they cannot be amended but only struck down—but when was the last time any SI was rejected?

One is spoilt for choice in terms of recent examples of Henry VIII powers, but just look at those which apply by virtue of Section 54 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. These are Henry VIII powers that are well concealed in other legislation by being applied via the back door of Section 54 to a vast array of new statutory provisions by virtue of amendments to that other legislation. Legislation should be clear and accessible, as we have heard.

This brings me to my last point, which is that legislation is difficult to navigate, even for lawyers, let alone laypeople. The fact that many Acts of Parliament consist largely of amendments to previous legislation makes the task doubly difficult. The recent Representation of the People Bill is a classic example of a Bill heaping yet more complexity on to an already hugely complex Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Again, the Constitution Committee has said that legislation should be clear and accessible.

To conclude where I started, we need to engage our young people with our precious constitution, combat some of their apathy towards politics and politicians, restore public trust in our political leaders and make the legislative process clearer and more accessible. All this would help enhance interest among our young people in citizenship issues, including the rule of law, and help create the political leaders of the future.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Prisoners

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence adversely affects prisoners’ risk assessments. What are the Government doing to improve the mental health of IPP prisoners so as to improve their prospects of release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It was important two years ago to get the IPP prisoners in the right prison so that they could get the support they needed. We have gone from the 70% range to now 95% of IPP prisoners being in the right prison, which means that they can get the right support. Again, it comes back to the question: do we have prisons that are working well and do we have the right support teams around those individuals? I am seeing that regularly. When I go around prisons, I am seeing things getting better, but we still need to do more. We also need to do more to support individuals who are neurodiverse IPP prisoners. The autistic wings that we are developing are a really positive step forward.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will certainly pass that on to my noble friend—I suspect that he may already know. He regularly meets with the families, because we understand the pressures that are upon them and are anxious to hear what we can do to ensure that we can safely release this troubling cohort while protecting the public as well.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that IPP prisoners are located in prisons close to their families so as to facilitate visits by their families? This must be one of the surest ways of achieving rehabilitation.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. I am happy to reassure him that we have now reallocated the IPP prisoners. The vast majority—around 95%—are in the appropriate custodial settings, in terms of both the visits and the care that they need, in order to help them to get to a point where we can start looking at release.

King’s Speech

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on the Representation of the People Bill, which seeks to protect our democracy. What is more important than that? I declare an interest, since I have been liaising with and advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption.

There is much to commend in the Representation of the People Bill, but the question is whether it goes far enough in certain respects, particularly given the febrile political landscape we now see, with more political parties seeking opportunities for power or a share of it. The temptation, therefore, by unscrupulous actors to give a fiscal advantage to a particular party by bending or circumventing the electoral rules on political donations and spending has never been greater. The Government are taking various measures to clamp down on abuse but, once the Bill reaches this House, I will be testing whether these measures should be strengthened in certain respects—for example, as regards foreign money finding its way into ostensibly permissible donations from donors in the UK, the amount of money that can be donated by each donor, and the limits on political parties’ spending.

There is, however, a quite separate urgency arising from the proposal to give the vote to 16 year-olds from 2028, which is whether young people have the necessary knowledge that they themselves have stated they want—and need—about our constitution, Parliament, the rule of law, the differences between the political parties and so on, to help them decide how to use their vote. Yes, some of this is mentioned in guidance on what citizenship education should cover in the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4, and the Government have responded to Becky Francis’s review of the curriculum by saying that they will extend aspects of this to key stages 1 and 2. This is good but does not go nearly far enough.

We know from the House of Lords Liaison Committee in 2022 that the teaching of citizenship has been badly neglected. This is confirmed by a recent study by London Metropolitan University of 14 and 15 year-olds in 120 schools, which showed that many of them have no real idea of what British political parties stand for, or even what a constituency is. The Liaison Committee said there was a lack of teacher expertise to make citizenship education in our schools meaningful. There should be at least one teacher trained in civic and constitutional education in every primary and secondary school.

I would add that giving 16 year-olds the vote means that the current guidance on the content of citizenship education in the national curriculum must be given a statutory mandate that requires a programme of civic and constitutional education, including education in domestic and international human rights, and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities. This was recommended by Sir Peter Gross in his 2022 review of the Human Rights Act, and it has never been so important, given the starkly different views between our parties, for example on our membership of the ECHR. Young people need to be taught the basic facts so that they can make up their own minds and cast their vote accordingly.

In conclusion, the late and greatly missed Lord Harries of Pentregarth introduced a Private Member’s Bill in July 2024 that highlighted the importance of citizenship values, but without ultimate success. I hope we can do better in this new Session. One opportunity might be the Private Member’s Bill on citizenship education that I have been fortunate to secure in the ballot. This would require our young people to be taught on all these issues by trained and impartial teachers, so as to make their vote at 16 more meaningful for them.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Amendment 169 is a very modest one. It simply proposes that, if the Bill proceeds, before any doctor raises the possibility of assisted dying, the patient should first receive a psychological assessment from an appropriately qualified specialist. This is not an onerous hurdle but a basic and sensible safeguard.

As many noble Lords have said, when people are approaching the end of their life, they are often in a very vulnerable state. Feelings of sadness, anxiety or despair are not unusual and even the most resilient of individuals is affected. That vulnerability can become much more acute when patients are told that they have a terminal illness and perhaps only six months to live. Such news can be profoundly shocking and can often trigger despair and even suicidal thoughts.

The evidence reflects this reality. Research drawing on data from the Office for National Statistics, King’s College London and the University of Manchester shows that the risk of suicide rises significantly in the first six months after diagnosis. In other words, the period immediately following diagnosis is often when patients are at their most fragile psychologically. This is precisely why we must proceed with great care.

Before introducing the possibility of assisted dying, it seems only prudent to understand the patient’s mental state. Without a proper psychological assessment, we cannot know whether patients are coping as well as they appear to be or whether they may be struggling with depression and even suicidal thoughts. Studies suggest that from 20% up to 40% of patients with advanced cancer experience clinical depression. Dr Rachel Clarke, a palliative care physician, warned the Commons Public Bill Committee exactly about this situation, saying that raising the question of assisted dying can unintentionally place pressure on a vulnerable patient.

Autonomy is often far more fragile and complex than we assume. When someone has just received devastating news, even a carefully framed question may be interpreted in ways that we never intended. Both the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as palliative care and disability groups, have warned that vulnerable patients are not adequately protected by the Bill as it currently stands.

Ordinary doctors are not usually trained to make complex psychological assessments. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, doctors involved in these early conversations may receive as little as 90 minutes of e-learning and one hour of an online interactive session. Surely that is unlikely to equip them to recognise subtle depressions or suicidal feelings in patients who are already known to be at great risk.

My son is a consultant physician at the largest psychiatric hospital in Berlin. For many years he has worked on the front line treating patients in acute crises and teaching junior doctors how to recognise mental illness. His view is very clear: depression can be remarkably easy to miss if you are not a specialist.

We assume that every human has free will, but this will be impeded by severe depression. People suffering from severe depression may appear calm, rational and composed—they may even seem cheerful—yet internally they may be struggling with profound hopelessness and suicidal thoughts that impair their judgment and decision-making. Research published in the Lancet has shown that general practitioners detect depression in only 50% of cases. This is not a criticism of them. It simply reflects the fact that recognising depression, especially in people with a serious physical illness, requires time, training and specialist experience. In the context of assisted dying, this matters enormously. A misdiagnosis is not a harmless mistake. It can have fatal consequences for a patient whose suicidal thoughts might be treatable and whose desire to die may have been only temporary.

For that reason, many psychiatrists across the United Kingdom and Europe believe that a specialist psychological assessment should come at the very beginning of the process. It is a careful, humane and responsible safeguard that ensures that a request for assisted dying reflects a settled decision, not untreated despair at a moment of profound vulnerability. If we fail to make that assessment first, we risk confusing a treatable cry for help with a settled and autonomous decision to die. To proceed without that knowledge is unfair, unethical and legally questionable, as many noble Lords have said before me. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, one of the most authoritative medical voices in the Lords, has warned:

“Without proper psychiatric assessment, a request to die may reflect treatable depression rather than a settled wish to end life”.


I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will take into account these worries and accept my amendment.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I have tabled four amendments towards the end of this group, Amendments 317, 346, 457 and 512, which are in identical terms. They are designed to ensure that a person seeking a state-assisted death is not acting out of a temporary feeling of fear, panic or anxiety in relation to their diagnosis and prognosis. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I can testify that when a person is told that they have a terminal illness with only a year or so at best to live, it is difficult to think rationally. It does not occur to you that it will often be a wholly inaccurate prognosis or that specialist palliative care can deal with most pain. My amendments therefore seek to ensure that the assessing doctors are satisfied that a person seeking a state-assisted death is not acting from such feelings of panic.

The noble and learned Lord the sponsor may say in response that the Bill already requires the doctor to ascertain whether the person has a “clear, settled” wish to end their life. However, it seems to me that a person can have such a clear and settled wish as a temporary result of fear, panic or anxiety. These amendments seek to raise the threshold at which an assessing doctor can be satisfied that the person has such a clear and settled wish.

It is at moments like that, when people are at their most vulnerable, that great care needs to be taken to ensure that they do not opt to go down a path which, on deeper and longer reflection, they might decide is wholly unnecessary or inappropriate for them. Yes, in theory they can change their mind later, but many people might feel reluctant, for all sorts of reasons, to reverse their decision once they are on that track, so the initial discussions with the assessing doctor are critically important.

A full specialist palliative care assessment, which was in an amendment I previously tabled in Committee that was rejected by the noble and learned Lord the sponsor, would help to ensure that they are not acting out of despair, fear, anxiety or panic, since it would put a pause on the whole process and ensure that their wish to end their life was properly informed, as required by the Bill. Both these sorts of amendments strike me as obviously desirable in a Bill of this nature, and I urge the noble and learned Lord the sponsor to avoid the need to have to bring them back on Report.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 158 and 163 are in my name. I will speak also to Amendments 157 and 164, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who cannot be with us here today. Amendment 157 in my noble friend’s name

“seeks to ensure that a doctor may not raise assisted suicide with a patient who has ‘opted-out”’.

The statement on Amendment 158 in my name says:

“The Bill appears to permit any doctor to raise ending a patient’s life, even if they have no prior relationship with the patient. This amendment specifies that a preliminary discussion can only take place with a registered medical practitioner who has known the patient for a minimum of six months”.


Amendment 164 in my noble friend’s name would insert:

“If a person has informed their general practitioner that they do not wish to discuss the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act, that fact must be added to their medical records, and a registered medical practitioner must not discuss it with them”.


In his observations on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a powerful point. He said that, based on his experience as a constituency MP, many members of the public are worried by doctors and hospitals, so when we debate medical issues in this House and put legislation on the statute book, it worries very great numbers of the population. It reminded me of my grandmother, who died 10 years ago. She lived until she was 97, but she had a theory that if you went into hospital, you did not come out alive. When I went to see her in East Cheshire Hospice—an outstanding hospice—at the age of 97, she grabbed hold of my arm and said, “What did I tell you? They’re trying to kill me. Get me out of this place”. But she died a very dignified death.

It was similar with my 90 year-old mother. There was an outstanding family GP service that knew our family, and we knew the GPs. There was good service from the local NHS, outstanding palliative care and, again, the outstanding East Cheshire Hospice. The glue that helped my family members to have a dignified death was that of a loving family. On a previous day in our debates, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made a powerful point: it is okay if you have a loving family network around you to take care of you and think of your interests when interacting with doctors and hospitals. But he then referred to those people who are poor, lonely and ill, and without the loving network around them to look after them.

A recent case happened that was very close to your Lordships’ House. A noble friend was admitted to a regional general hospital with sepsis: a very ill friend indeed. One issue that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned was about the NHS and the pressures on it, whether through funding or at times of stress, such as when the junior doctors are on strike. An assessment was made that my noble friend needed to be operated on urgently—a life-saving operation—but, because of the junior doctors’ strike, they were unable to get the necessary staffing for the operation, so the decision was made that they could not operate on my noble friend. My noble friend’s daughter was distraught, as you can imagine, so she contacted the Whips’ Office and asked whether they could help.

Your Lordships’ House is full of eminent clinicians. A Member of your Lordships’ House was able to find a crew that could operate on my noble friend in London. All they had to do was extract her from the NHS hospital in the regions and bring her down to the private hospital in London, which was duly done. However, they could not operate on my noble friend because she was dehydrated. The decision had been made in that regional hospital to not continue with food and liquids. The good news is that, when she was rehydrated, they operated. I am very happy to say that my noble friend made a full recovery and to this day makes a huge contribution to this House from our Front Bench.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 476, 477 and 478 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which I have added my name. I am also sympathetic to the other amendments in this group and declare, as ever, that I am a schoolteacher in Hackney. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Transform Justice.

I rather innocently assumed that one of the cornerstones of the justice system in this country is rehabilitation, but this does not seem to be the case with our young people. As we have heard, every year in England and Wales there are 13,000 convictions of children aged 10 to 17, who are disproportionately from poor backgrounds, minoritised communities, in care or excluded from school. Those convicted acquire criminal records which only add to their disadvantage.

Some of these criminal records remain through life. A child charged for affray for a playground fight would have to disclose that for ever on a standard and enhanced DBS check. Also, currently, as we have heard, a criminal record is acquired on conviction rather than according to the date of the offence itself. This means that many people commit offences as children but acquire an adult criminal record because, through no fault of their own, the hearing at which they are convicted happens after their 18th birthday. This situation has got worse because of the recent delays in the court system. This is patently absurd.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has said, brains do not mature until people are well into their twenties. Also, research has shown that teenagers take more risks when they have an audience. As I see in the playground every week, children are immature and often reckless, not seeing the consequences of their actions.

Our criminal records should allow for rehabilitation in order to allow young people to move on from childhood mistakes. These amendments would mean that young people should be able to be free of their childhood offences at a specific interval after they have finished their sentence, so they do not have to explain old and no longer relevant childhood offences to potential employers—even if they manage to get as far as an interview. We are not talking about the most serious crimes here.

For everyone else, these amendments would mean that childhood offences should automatically be taken off the records five and a half years after conviction. We also propose that a conditional caution, when accepted by a child, should not appear on the records. We propose that those whose conviction is delayed until after their 18th birthday should not acquire an adult criminal record.

With the number of NEETs approaching 1 million, we should be doing everything we can to remove barriers to employment and let rehabilitation of the young be truly part of the justice system.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to speak to Amendment 486D, and I support all the other amendments in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his compelling introduction, and for the other powerful speeches. You may wonder why I have tabled this very specific amendment. The best way I can relate it is to tell a brief story. I was truly shocked when a friend drew my attention to an incident involving his teenage daughter a few years ago, but which, I believe, affects many of our young people, receives very little publicity and ruins many lives.

My friend’s daughter had arrived at a railway station to find that the ticket machines were not working and there was a long queue for the ticket office. Desperate to catch a train to get her vaccinations for charitable work abroad, she foolishly jumped on a train without a ticket.

When she got out at her destination, she offered to pay at the barrier. The inspector told her to get a ticket at the ticket office. However, there was a long queue, so, knowing that she would not have time to do that, she went to the machines, but she found that she could not get a machine ticket for a journey from the station where she had left to the station she had arrived at.

Very naively, she thought she would therefore get the ticket after her appointment for vaccinations, and she left the station in a state of some panic. It was then that she was approached by the ticket inspector and told she was to be prosecuted under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for travelling without paying the fare with intent to avoid payment. It was the first time she had ever done something like this. Her ticket would have cost £3.20. That is less than a cappuccino coffee.

I discovered that, if convicted, she might not only face a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to three months, but her conviction would be recorded on the Police National Database and future potential employers would see it after a basic criminal records search for up to six years and for up to 11 years, I believe, after an enhanced check. Through just one moment’s teenage lack of judgment, her prospects of obtaining a job and a career would be blighted during a crucial period when most young people are trying to get on the career ladder—all for a £3.20 fare.

Acting as a friend, I had many exchanges of correspondence with the rail company, all to no avail. The upshot was that I ended up joining her and her desperately worried parents at the local magistrates’ court for her hearing, where I intended to plead the mitigating circumstances of her case. To my horror, I discovered she was one of dozens of other children and young people queuing up that morning, charged with exactly the same offence, which was a regular occurrence at that magistrates’ court, I found. It was nothing unusual. I managed to persuade the train company to drop her case if she paid a fine, but thousands of other young people are not so lucky.

This was a young teenage woman who was on an important journey in connection with unpaid charitable work abroad. Her heart was in exactly the right place. On the spur of the moment, she panicked and thought she might miss her train. She had tried to pay the fare at the train barriers when she arrived, so she emphatically did not intend to avoid it. Of course—and I emphasise this—she thoroughly deserved the fine, but did she really deserve the likely prospect of being unable to obtain a decent job for the next six to 11 years, all for a one-off, first-time offence relating to a £3.20 train ticket? She was no serial offender.

The charity FairChecks has demonstrated that, with a criminal record, young people can be locked out of future employment opportunities and even voluntary work. Research shows that at least 30% of employers automatically exclude a candidate with an unspent conviction. But the facts show that, as we have heard, young peoples’ brains are still developing, which makes them more impulsive and less able fully to understand the consequences of their actions. It is therefore crucial that they be given the opportunity to move on from their mistakes without carrying the weight of those childhood errors during early adulthood. In all honesty, might not many of us say, “There but for the grace of God go our children”?

My amendment would give our children a second chance if they are found without a valid ticket on the railways. They would still be liable for a penalty fare or a fine but, provided it was a first offence, their lives would not be ruined by being given a disclosable criminal record. I emphasise that my amendment would not apply if they were caught a second time. In those circumstances, they would not have learned from their mistakes and potential employers would have just cause in wanting to know they were dishonest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for tabling Amendments 420, 476 to 478 and 486D. They form a formidable trio in terms of not just their expertise but the respect that they rightly command in your Lordships’ House.

A number of noble Lords have raised the question of the age of criminal responsibility. I hope I will be forgiven for not addressing that now; I know for certain that we will be addressing it at least twice in the days and weeks to come.

The Government acknowledge the principle that underpins these amendments—namely, that having a criminal record will have a significant impact on children and that such a record can, in some circumstances, follow them into later life as adults, again with profound consequences. That said, as I think all noble Lords agreed, it is critical that our criminal records disclosure regime strikes the right balance. On the one hand, we want to support people who have committed criminal offences, either some time ago or when they were very young, to be able to move on with their lives. But there is also a need for appropriate risk management in the public interest, as well as to safeguard the most vulnerable.

I will deal first with Amendments 420 and 476 to 478. The existing regime helps employers make informed recruitment decisions through the disclosure of appropriate and relevant information. This will mean that some serious offences, even when committed as a child, will always need to be disclosed, particularly where a person is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. As some of your Lordships will be aware, in his recent independent review of the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In the Statement I made to your Lordships’ House on 2 December, I said that we will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is both clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

I would be very happy to meet with any of your Lordships over the coming weeks to discuss this in more detail. It is of the utmost importance to the Government that we work together to ensure that we get this right. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I was very struck by the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, that this is not always as straightforward as it might appear, hence the need to make sure that we do this carefully, in a structured and thoughtful way. As I said, I would be delighted to see any of your Lordships. Given the offer made by my noble friend Lord Hanson in the previous group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I may be seeing rather more of each other than perhaps he had intended—but it is always a pleasure on my part.

Turning to Amendment 486D, I am very surprised to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says because the Government’s view echoes what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said: children are generally treated leniently when fare evasion occurs. This offence is most commonly dealt with by transport staff, so usually no question arises of a child acquiring a criminal record for fare evasion and similar offences. The police usually become involved only in cases of a refusal to pay for a ticket, for repeat offences or because of some other complicating factor. Even when the police become involved, this does not usually result in a prosecution taking place because the Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to consider, as a specific public interest factor tending against prosecution, where a child is young or where it is a first offence.

Police officers can give out-of-court disposals, which allow them to respond to low-level offending proportionately and effectively. These out-of-court disposals, of which there are a variety, provide opportunities for children to make reparation and restoration to victims, and to be diverted into courses or services which can help to change their offending behaviour. Most types of out-of-court disposals are not automatically disclosed on criminal record certificates.

The Government believe that it would be very unusual for a child or young person to get a criminal conviction for this type of offence but, were that to happen, the disclosure time limits under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are very different from those that affect adults. Rehabilitation periods for children are typically half the length of those for an adult. For example, if a court were to impose a fine for fare evasion, there would usually be a requirement that the child disclose their conviction for only six months, as opposed to the case of an adult, who would have to disclose it for a year.

For all these reasons, under the existing legislation, the Government’s view is that there is a very small chance of a child who is a first-time offender getting a criminal record for a fare evasion offence in the first place, and an equally small chance of such a conviction following them into adult life. I will, however, make inquiries and write to the noble Lord giving such statistics as I am able to find.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I am extremely grateful. To some extent mine is a probing amendment—I need more facts and evidence around this—but the Minister referred to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The cases I spoke about were prosecuted by the train operating company. I am not really convinced that it had even heard of the Code for Crown Prosecutors; judging from all the correspondence I had with it, I do not think it had, to be honest. I believe there is something there to be investigated more closely, because I saw the evidence with my own eyes.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do not think that I can improve on what I have said. I will make inquiries into the statistical evidence that we hold and write to the noble Lord.

I reiterate that I am very happy to meet any of your Lordships, including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, ahead of Report to discuss these issues in more detail. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 423 would implement a recommendation of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the judgment in the Lee Clegg case in the 1990s. Briefly, the facts of that case were that, on 30 September 1990, Private Lee Clegg was on patrol in west Belfast, when a passenger in a stolen car was shot and killed. Lee Clegg was charged with murder, and his defence was that he fired in self-defence. He was convicted of murder on the grounds that he used disproportionate force.

On an appeal, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to decide whether a soldier on duty in defence of the civil power—in a similar position, therefore, to police firearm officers—who kills a person and who would be entitled to rely on self-defence but for the excessive use of force, is guilty of murder or manslaughter. A manslaughter verdict would have meant a change in the law. Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that the arguments in favour of such a change were very persuasive. Quoting from the Court of Appeal, he said:

“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorists or domestic murderers, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified”.


Lord Lloyd continued:

“It is right that Private Clegg should be convicted in respect of the unlawful killing … and that he should receive a just punishment for committing an offence which ended a young life and caused great sorrow to her parents and relatives and friends. But this court considers, and we believe that many other fair-minded citizens would share this view, that the law would be much fairer if it had been open to the trial judge to have convicted Private Clegg of the lesser crime of manslaughter on the ground that he did not kill … from an evil motive but because his duties as a soldier”


meant he had a high-velocity rifle, and

“he reacted wrongly to a situation which suddenly confronted him in the course of his duties … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.

However, Lord Lloyd ruled it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law, and it was for Parliament to do so.

Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity, and the issue has never been more important, given the analogous position of police firearms officers. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people—an average of two a year. Most recently, we have seen the prosecution last year for murder in the case of Sergeant Martyn Blake. Police officers are being deterred from volunteering for firearms training and the National Police Chiefs’ Council says police forces across England and Wales are grappling with a significant shortage of firearms officers, exacerbated by the lack of legal protections afforded to armed officers, particularly regarding criminal and misconduct hearings. The move to anonymity in criminal proceedings is welcome but not enough.

Parliament enacted legislation in 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which set out the law of self-defence in Section 76. This provides that the question whether the degree of force used by D—the defendant—was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, but, crucially, the degree of force used by the defendant is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances if it was disproportionate. Therefore, the upshot is that a police officer cannot rely on self-defence to a murder charge if he used disproportionate force. This is unlike in the case of householders who, since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will now generally have a defence if the force was disproportionate, but not if it was grossly disproportionate.

This confirms my belief that there is a lacuna that needs to be addressed, just as the House of Lords said in the appeal in the case of Lee Clegg. I should add a brief postscript here to the Lee Clegg case, since I believe he was subsequently acquitted on the grounds of new evidence.

On 23 October 2024, the then Home Secretary made a Statement on the Martyn Blake case. She said that

“the current system for holding police officers to account is not commanding the confidence of either the public or the police”,

and that although the public are entitled

“to expect that when officers exceed the lawful use of their powers … there will be … robust processes in place to hold them to account”,

she continued:

“Police officers who act with integrity and bravery to keep us safe each day need to know they have strong public support. If officers lack the confidence to use their powers … public safety is put at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 300.]


My amendment seeks to strike this balance by implementing the recommendation of the House of Lords in the Lee Clegg case all those years ago. If passed, it would not, as in the householder’s case, result in an officer’s acquittal, since I do not think that can be justified in the case of trained firearms officers. There needs to be accountability and a criminal penalty. The House of Lords in Clegg seemed to agree, since it recommended manslaughter, not acquittal, for such cases. I will be very interested to hear the views of the Government on this long-standing issue.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. Firearms officers provide a valuable and necessary service, and are an important part of UK policing. They do a very difficult and dangerous job and deserve our thanks. The current climate is not conducive to good policing and does not support our officers. This amendment is a positive one which will help them.

This is a topical amendment. Several days ago, the Independent Office for Police Conduct ruled on the case of Sean Fitzgerald being shot during a raid by West Midlands Police. He was holding a black mobile phone, which the officer who shot him believed was a gun.

This ruling was the conclusion of a long, complex investigation that included experts whose reconstruction corroborated the officer’s testimony that the phone could have been mistaken for a gun. The director of the IOPC said:

“The determination over whether the officer should face disciplinary proceedings largely came down to a split-second decision in what was a dynamic, fast-moving, armed police operation”.


This was a tragic accident, but it highlights the fact that firearms officers have to make very difficult, instantaneous decisions that can result in life or death. They have to quickly make a call on what is the safest option for themselves, their fellow officers and the public. In order for them to make the best judgments for themselves and for the public, they need to be confident that they will be supported in making that endeavour.

It is striking that in a piece in the Daily Telegraph, former firearms officer Sergeant Harry Tangye said that his and his fellow officers’ main fear was not being shot themselves; it was facing the investigation that would happen after they discharged their weapon while doing their job. The case of the shooting of Chris Kaba demonstrates this. In response to how the officer was treated, up to 300 Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearms roles, and the Army had to be put on standby to support the Met.

Firearms officers go through intensive training, including in how to respond in high-pressure situations. These are dedicated people with a strong desire to protect the public and serve their communities. Tangye said:

“But each time an AFO attends a scene, they face an uncomfortable truth: if I get this wrong I could be jailed. In my 30-year career I never once met an officer who wanted to ‘bag’ a scalp; no-one who hoped for the chance to use their gun to bring down a criminal. Most of us weren’t even keen on firearms at all. If you were a weapons enthusiast, you would be viewed with great suspicion by your force and probably removed”.


Authorised firearms officers, or AFOs, he said,

“shouldn’t have to do their jobs in fear of being jailed, or in fear of their careers, their lives, being ruined”.

The Police Federation also shares these concerns: that firearm officers,

“even when they follow the tactics and training they have received, will face significant struggles and hardships over what are usually split-second decisions taken by them in dangerous and fast-moving situations”.

Firearms officers need to be protected in primary legislation to make sure it is certain that they will be treated fairly when they have to make a very difficult decision. This amendment from the noble Lord is not a “get out of jail free” card; it still holds them to account for their actions. It means that officers who do their job properly, who make a decision that would be impossible for most people in this Chamber to comprehend, are protected under the law, and on that basis, I strongly support the amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group. I do not need to explain what they say because they are all replicated by other amendments in the group, so I can be very brief. All these amendments are intended to ensure that a person seeking assistance to end their life first be referred to a registered medical practitioner who specialises in palliative, hospice and other care for the purpose of a full assessment—the operative word being “assessment”, not necessarily treatment. The Bill currently requires merely that a medical practitioner “offer” a referral to a specialist palliative care practitioner. This is inadequate in relation to such critical decisions as choosing whether to live or seek a state-assisted death.

It is important to note that all these amendments are based on evidence. In countries with assisted dying—Oregon has been referred to—experts say that patients who request help to die often change their minds if provided with proper palliative care. Yet the Government’s impact assessment confirms that fewer than half of dying people have input from a specialist palliative care team in the last three months of their life. It seems hard to dispute the case, therefore, for the Bill requiring that persons seeking a state-assisted death be given a full palliative care assessment, with the opportunity to choose to experience modern specialist palliative care at its very best. It is about doing everything humanly possible to keep people alive with as little pain and suffering as possible, and giving priority to life over death wherever possible.

Recalling our debate yesterday about which amendments the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, might be prepared to accept, the amendments in this group are, like the previous group, pivotal to the decision a dying person will have to make if this Bill is enacted. It would save much time on Report if the noble and learned Lord could indicate now whether he can accept one or more of them. The Government would then have a responsibility to ensure that adequate palliative care specialists are available.

I recall, as I did at Second Reading, the wise words of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who, in answer to an Oral Question in this House on 4 September 2024, said that the Government’s

“commitment is to ensure that any debate on assisted dying … takes place in a broader context of access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1151.]

The amendments in this group would help to ensure that a person at least has a real choice of whether to access that palliative and end-of-life care or whether to seek a state-assisted death.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 51 and others would require the providers of assisted dying services to ensure that all persons seeking such services have discussed the range of end-of-life options available to them with a palliative care specialist.

The Government and proponents of the Bill have promised that end-of-life care will not suffer in order to accommodate assisted dying. I have significant reservations about whether this would be possible, and I fear a push factor, particularly for those who are vulnerable, those who are without family and, to be absolutely frank, those who are poor and cannot fund their own care. When done right, as we know, palliative care can provide a dignified end of life and alleviate the desire to hasten one’s death. Equitable access to options for end-of-life care must be a cornerstone for this Bill, which is why I have laid these amendments. I want to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that all people have and know that they have equal access to palliative care, to treatments that may extend life and to specialist teams to manage the symptoms and pain and to provide dignity.

This Committee must accept that equal access to these services, as for many public services, is not guaranteed and is rarely delivered. I give just one example, due to time. A Liverpool resident with the terrible asbestos-related mesothelioma cancer can undergo a specialist injection that has a high chance of abolishing the pain, whereas a resident of the Midlands, who may be unfit to travel to Liverpool, simply cannot because there are so few specialists trained to take this work on. Therefore, access is obviously limited.

Clauses 5 and 12 require doctors to have discussions about disease prognosis, treatments and symptomatic alleviation with patients. Clause 5 includes an offer to refer them to a specialist. Although these are important discussions, which must be had, they have to be conducted by somebody properly trained and experienced in such matters. For conditions that are specialist care cases, such as motor neurone disease, most doctors will have minimal involvement in the management of that condition and will likely not have the skills and training to adequately fulfil the duties that the Bill places on them. A specialist referral is absolutely necessary to that ensure patients are able to reach an informed decision about their care with somebody who properly understands the disease, how that disease will progress and what can be put in place to alleviate their distress and pain.

A person seeking assisted dying will be worried about their future, losing their independence and dignity and placing a huge burden on their families. A dedicated palliative care specialist would have the expertise, skill and training to provide the highest level of information and support, tailored to the individual needs of each patient, and have specialist knowledge of the condition that the patient is experiencing. Clause 1 requires that a person

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

I believe that you can ensure a settled and informed wish and reach an informed decision only after properly exploring all available care and treatment options with dedicated palliative care specialists and having those options available to you. My amendment would therefore create a duty on all people involved in the provision of assisted dying services to ensure that those discussions have occurred, covering care options including symptom management and home care provision.

I welcome the amendments tabled by other colleagues that would ensure a dedicated palliative care assessment is part of the assisted dying process and I believe that my amendment can work alongside theirs. My amendment would also cover consultations with palliative care specialists that occur prior to a person seeking assisted dying, providing they cover the criteria outlined in the amendment. You can reach a clear, informed decision to end your own life only after having the advice and support to truly be able to weigh your options. That guarantee should absolutely be in the Bill.