we re throughout the pandemic. they were taking those key decisions and they were the ones in touch with london throughout that time and deciding on their own actions whether they were diverged from that path or not. as i say we are onlyjust diverged from that path or not. as i say we are only just about an diverged from that path or not. as i say we are onlyjust about an hour into michelle o'neill's evidence. we will be hearing from her into late this afternoon and then from arlene foster tomorrow so we definitely should get more insight. i will interru -t should get more insight. i will interrupt you _ should get more insight. i will interrupt you because - should get more insight. i will interrupt you because i - should get more insight. i will interrupt you because i want l should get more insight. i will interrupt you because i want to take you to the court of appeal because the family of grace o'malley, speaking. the attorney general�*s case has not been successful. this is disappointing but not unexpected. the nottingham attacks were entirely preventable. nottinghamshire police failed to execute a warrant for many months. a flawed investigation, no toxicology, overreliance on psychiatric reports. leicestershire

police failed to arrest valdo calocane. this is a failure of two police forces. a failure of the mental health trust, along with nottinghamshire council as well. missed multiple opportunities to prevent the nottingham attacks and the murder of our children and ian coates, is what has led us here today. we will continue to pursue agencies that failed us and hold them responsible for the nottingham attacks. this is so no otherfamily is made to suffer like ours. we thank everyone for the outpouring of support for our brave and beautiful daughter, grace. thank you. that is dr san'a daughter, grace. thank you. that is dr sanjay kumar. _ daughter, grace. thank you. that is

dr sanjay kumar. he _ daughter, grace. thank you. that is dr sanjay kumar. he was _ daughter, grace. thank you. that is dr sanjay kumar. he was standing l dr sanjay kumar. he was standing with dr sinead o'malley, parents of gray soma league kumar who was killed in that attack in nottingham last year. he is reacting to the news that that the court of appeal has refused to change that sentence. he said that it was disappointing and not unexpected. he said it was down to a failure of two police forces and people missing multiple opportunities to prevent the attacks and the murder of their children and ian coates. he said that he would continue to pursue the agencies who failed us so much. joining me now is emma webber, the mother of barnaby webber, who was one of the people who was killed in that attack in june last year vai tiktok by valdo calocane. thank you forjoining us on bbc news. i know today must be a difficult day for you. i wonder if i could first get your reaction to the

court of appeal decision that the sentence wasn't unduly lenient. thanks for having me. it is another traumatic day. we have had 11 traumatic day. we have had 11 traumatic months so far. we are not surprised. we are disappointed because it would have been a modicum of some comfort to have an appeal added to valdo calocane we are not surprised. we didn't call for this, the attorney general did. i think it just reflects that, given what dr kumar said is quite right. the gross failures and errors, and the weakness of the prosecution and other agencies as well, has led to this inevitable outcome today. fire this inevitable outcome today. are ou more this inevitable outcome today. are you more angry about the investigation, rather than the sentence that the judge imposed? i think so, yes. the judge sentence that the judge imposed? i think so, yes. thejudge in nottingham, thejudges in the high court, could only deal with what they had in front of them,

unfortunately. the real questions are the quality of the evidence and some answers we really need into omissions and failures and contradictions throughout. the court of a - eal contradictions throughout. the court of appealjudges _ contradictions throughout. the court of appealjudges said _ contradictions throughout. the court of appealjudges said that _ contradictions throughout. the court of appealjudges said that the - contradictions throughout. the court of appealjudges said that the judge | of appealjudges said that the judge in the case had to go by the medical evidence that he was presented with. yes, absolutely. we have said this was a trial by dr. the utter overreliance on the eminent doctors reports, what they are vital parts of the evidence put forward, when you stop to look into the detail and the dates, and the concerns we raised that were not covered during the prosecution process, it gives as grave concern about the outcome. and it shouldn't just be grave concern about the outcome. and it shouldn'tjust be down to the doctor's.

it shouldn't 'ust be down to the doctor's. , ., ., ., doctor's. the 'udges said that valdo calocane doctor's. the 'udges said that valdo calocane was— doctor's. the judges said that valdo calocane was having _ doctor's. the judges said that valdo calocane was having a _ doctor's. the judges said that valdo calocane was having a psychotic - calocane was having a psychotic episode at the time and that was why yourson episode at the time and that was why your son and the others were killed. do you think there is more to it than that, and the fact that he did plan it? than that, and the fact that he did [an it? ~ , ,., , than that, and the fact that he did plan it? absolutely. of course, undoubtedly — plan it? absolutely. of course, undoubtedly and _ plan it? absolutely. of course, l undoubtedly and unquestionably plan it? absolutely. of course, - undoubtedly and unquestionably there is more to it. he is mentally very seriously unwell. it was first symptomatic in 2019, diagnosed in 2020. there have been numerous occasions of violent incidents and assaults and disturbing behaviour since then. he has been sectioned four times. there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for a violent assault on a police officer during a mental health intervention. he was tasered. to hear in court today that he had no prior convictions and that there was no evidence of any drug use at all, i find it insulting, because actually, when you start to

dig and you look deeper, there is a clear escalation and there is clear concern. how long has this individual had the psychotic moment. he planned, he had a rucksack full of weapons. he ordered a sharpening stone for his knives, his array of knives, only a few months before. he had violently assaulted two co—workers before. when did the psychotic episode start and end? when we have questioned the fact that he was able to make what seemingly rational decisions to withdraw money to buy sandwiches, to interact with some people but to kill others, we were told by the dr, thatis kill others, we were told by the dr, that is part of being psychotic. when we were told of the frenzied attack of almost 50 knife wounds on the victims, that was part of the psychosis as well. it feels like you can't have it both ways and we want to dig in and we want to know more. we want copies of those reports and we won't stop until we get the answers we deserve. barney, grace and ian are not coming back. you say ou won't

and ian are not coming back. you say you won't stop- _ and ian are not coming back. you say you won't stop. what _ and ian are not coming back. you say you won't stop. what would - and ian are not coming back. you say you won't stop. what would you - and ian are not coming back. you say you won't stop. what would you like l you won't stop. what would you like to happen next? fist you won't stop. what would you like to happen next?— you won't stop. what would you like to happen next? at the moment we are facin: i to happen next? at the moment we are facing i think. — to happen next? at the moment we are facing i think, today _ to happen next? at the moment we are facing i think, today about _ to happen next? at the moment we are facing i think, today about eight - facing i think, today about eight separate reviews and investigations that we are being pulled into as traumatised families. we are concerned that the can delete my cohesion is not going to be there and we are not going to get the overall outcome. there are some very clear errors right the way through, from the mental health trusts, leicestershire police, nottinghamshire police. we don't even know about the university of the city council itself yet. the fact that there are so many we are worried. we think we are going to agree with keir starmer that a public inquiry is needed because it should not full to us families to be at every single review and make sure every eye is dotted on every tee crossed. d0 every eye is dotted on every tee crossed. , ., ~ , ., crossed. do you think there is a wider implication, _ crossed. do you think there is a wider implication, not - crossed. do you think there is a wider implication, notjust - crossed. do you think there is a wider implication, not just for l crossed. do you think there is a i wider implication, not just for your case, wider implication, notjust for your case, but forthe wider implication, notjust for your case, but for the wider criminal justice system?—

case, but for the wider criminal justice system? absolutely. i think the criminal— justice system? absolutely. i think the criminaljustice _ justice system? absolutely. i think the criminaljustice system - justice system? absolutely. i think the criminaljustice system is - the criminaljustice system is seriously flawed. it is seriously under resourced, particularly from the prosecution on the cps side of things. we have been told that as a fact. we have seen evidence of it ourselves. i think you only actually have to look at the news. this is about public safety. there was a lot of talk about keeping prisoners safe from valdo calocane. not what has happened in recent weeks. look at the number of violent offences and the number of violent offences and the increase in knife crime in this country. it is something that has to be addressed urgently because it could happen to anybody anywhere. unfortunately it happened to us and destroyed our lives. i suppose we have to use the voice that we have had forced upon us to try to make change for others in the future, because it is awful. you change for others in the future, because it is awful.— change for others in the future, because it is awful. you talk about the wider implications. _ because it is awful. you talk about the wider implications. what - because it is awful. you talk about the wider implications. what you | the wider implications. what you think the wider implication is? to the political parties need to get

together for what might be described as a root and branch reform of it to look at it, about how they go forward? i look at it, about how they go forward? ., �* ~ ., ., , look at it, about how they go forward? ~ ., ., , ~ forward? i don't know, really. a ear ao forward? i don't know, really. a year ago i _ forward? i don't know, really. a year ago i wouldn't _ forward? i don't know, really. a year ago i wouldn't have - forward? i don't know, really. a year ago i wouldn't have had - forward? i don't know, really. a year ago i wouldn't have had a l forward? i don't know, really. a. year ago i wouldn't have had a clue about most of the things i'm talking about most of the things i'm talking about now and i don't want to become an armchair expert. it is clear to me, as a human being, as a law—abiding citizen, as a grieving parent, a devastated mother, that things have gone so badly wrong and it is not an isolated incident, that it is not an isolated incident, that it is not an isolated incident, that it is going to happen again. i don't know what the actual answer is. all i do know is, our public safety has to come first and we have to therefore start to look at what is going wrong and when these incidents are happening and when they are happening. i are happening and when they are ha eninu. . are happening and when they are haueninu. . , happening. i am interested, the 'udaes happening. i am interested, the 'ud . es in happening. i am interested, the judges in their— happening. i am interested, the judges in their statement - happening. i am interested, the judges in their statement said i happening. i am interested, the i judges in their statement said the offences had caused unimaginable grief, which is what you have suffered. i wondered whether you were getting support from members of the public and have other people come forward to you to say this has

happened to us, we think there needs to be changed? mt; happened to us, we think there needs to be changed?— to be changed? my goodness, yes. in our world of— to be changed? my goodness, yes. in our world of darkness, _ to be changed? my goodness, yes. in our world of darkness, the _ to be changed? my goodness, yes. in our world of darkness, the glimmersl our world of darkness, the glimmers of hope that we get have actually come from the goodness and support and compassion that is still out in society with the public. the media have been incredibly supportive as well. we still get letters on a weekly basis, probably 1000 at last count. countless messages of support. unfortunately, we are talking to two other families who have been involved in very high profile tragedies, one of which is involving a very similar diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. they are reaching out to us because we are getting support as victims that we are due, and that we are entitled to. whilst i think it is widely quoted victims are at the centre and

heart of everything the judicial justice system does, we are not. we are in appendix at best. i would probably argue i am an annoyance to them now. iam not going probably argue i am an annoyance to them now. i am not going to go quietly into that good night because i am in this awful position. i don't want to be in this awful position. i would much rather not have this voice. but have it, i have got, the same as the other families, and use it we must. same as the other families, and use it we must-— it we must. finally are you optimistic _ it we must. finally are you optimistic that _ it we must. finally are you optimistic that you - it we must. finally are you optimistic that you are - it we must. finally are you l optimistic that you are going it we must. finally are you - optimistic that you are going to see justice for barnaby, grace and ian? i believe that we will evoke change thatis i believe that we will evoke change that is much needed, and i believe we will get proper accountability from the agencies and the individuals that have failed them. i hope we can do something, in whatever time we have got left on this mortal coil, to maybe make some change in a system that desperately needs it. . ~ , , ., ~ change in a system that desperately needs it. . ~ ,, ., ~ needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your— needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your time _ needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your time on _ needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your time on what _ needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your time on what we - needs it. emma webber, thank you so much for your time on what we know l much for your time on what we know is a difficult day for you today. we

appreciate your time on bbc news. thank you very much. you appreciate your time on bbc news. thank you very much.— thank you very much. you are welcome- _ thank you very much. you are welcome. thank— thank you very much. you are welcome. thank you. - thank you very much. you are welcome. thank you. let's - thank you very much. you are | welcome. thank you. let's get thank you very much. you are - welcome. thank you. let's get more from our home _ welcome. thank you. let's get more from our home and _ welcome. thank you. let's get more from our home and legal— welcome. thank you. let's get more from our home and legal affairs - from our home and legal affairs correspondent who was in court. can you just outline. we have been to date like talking thereto emma webber. just outline what the court judges said today. in webber. just outline what the court judges said today.— judges said today. in short, they said there was _ judges said today. in short, they said there was no _ judges said today. in short, they said there was no legal - judges said today. in short, they said there was no legal reason i judges said today. in short, they i said there was no legal reason why they should interfere with the sentence that the trialjudge in nottingham handed down to valdo calocane in january. nottingham handed down to valdo calocane injanuary. it is very difficult for a sentence in a criminal court to be overturned by the court of appeal. it is not simply a case of the court of appeal having a look at the evidence for itself and coming to a different conclusion. the court has to be satisfied that the judge fell into, in the jargon, gross error, that somehow thejudge missed in the jargon, gross error, that

somehow the judge missed something that was critical to the case. during the ruling this morning, which was effectively a summary of what is going to be quite a long judgment, lady chiefjustice made very clear that when the trialjudge in nottingham looked at the evidence of what happened on that appalling day lastjune, it was apparent to thejudge that, from day lastjune, it was apparent to the judge that, from the evidence that was presented to him in court, and he can only go on the evidence before him in court, that there was no dispute that valdo calocane had acted in the midst of an acute episode of psychosis, brought on by paranoid schizophrenia, that he was effectively out of control of his own actions, and therefore, in the circumstances the court had no option but to accept the plea of manslaughter by diminished responsibility. that fed into the question of to how he should be sentence. taking that starting point that valdo calocane has been shown in court to be very, exceptionally mentally ill. i remember reading at

the time from the judges remarked that he was on the medicine of last resort for his particular form of schizophrenia. the options for the judge then become limited because thejudge has to judge then become limited because the judge has to sentence on the basis that he is mentally unwell, rather than necessarily sentence him on the basis of a punishment. that is the first factor in the judge's consideration. secondly thejudge has to deal with the question of public safety and dangerousness around that. let's break that down. let's look at the sentence in terms of mental health. the key issue for the trialjudge was a decision that he had to be subjected, valdo calocane, had to be subjected to a hospital order. the type of hospital he is on, it is a hospital but it is a secure hospital. it is not as if he can get out of there. his only way out of there is over a long process of responding to treatment, which to be perfectly honest could take decades. we know very serious offenders are kept in these

hospitals, in effect, all their lives. the question was, was whether valdo calocane became well, whether or not, or rather less ill, whether or not, or rather less ill, whether or not, or rather less ill, whether or not he should be moved to a prison as part of a punishment, and thejudge concluded that prison as part of a punishment, and the judge concluded that so deeply embedded where his mental ill health problems, that the only way to safely manage the dangers he will continue to present for the rest of his life, was through keeping him as much as possible, in a hospital, because if he was sent to a prison that would run the risk that he would come off his medication and start to present an increasing danger to the public. that was the keyissue danger to the public. that was the key issue in this. i think that is why the court of appeals said he can't have been seen to have fallen into error. let me read a few bits from thejudgment. this is what lady chiefjustice said. the key factor in a case like this, when deciding whether or not a penal element is required, is the strength of the link between the offender's

impairmentand link between the offender's impairment and the offending in question. at the time of the assaults, the offender was in the grip of a severe psychotic episode. lady chiefjustice went on to say that thejudge lady chiefjustice went on to say that the judge correctly took this into account, along with all the other factor is presented, into account, along with all the otherfactor is presented, and his conclusion was consistent with the simple principle, that the graver the offence, and the greater the risk to the public, the greater the emphasis that should be placed on the protection of the public, and therefore the court of appeal found no reason to interfere with the judge's decision, that that public protection can be maximised in this particular case going forward, in making sure that valdo calocane effectively stays in a mental institution, subject to medication, and can only be released after a very, very thorough examination of whether he could ever be fit to leave. i think one of the striking things about this is the sympathy that lady chiefjustice tried to

express on the behalf of the judiciary, making clear this wasn't an easy decision for the courts. they understood the pain and horror that everyone has gone through, but as a matter of law, the sentencing judge had gone in the correct direction. that is why the sentence has stood today.— direction. that is why the sentence has stood today. interesting in that 'ud . ment, has stood today. interesting in that judgment. lady _ has stood today. interesting in that judgment, lady chief _ has stood today. interesting in that judgment, lady chiefjustice - has stood today. interesting in that judgment, lady chiefjustice saying| judgment, lady chiefjustice saying nojudge or court could judgment, lady chiefjustice saying no judge or court could ignore the medical evidence. how important the medical evidence. how important the medical experts were who gave evidence during the trial. yes. evidence during the trial. yes, that's right- — evidence during the trial. yes, that's right. the _ evidence during the trial. yes, that's right. the way _ evidence during the trial. yes, that's right. the way these - evidence during the trial. yes that's right. the way these things pan out, i have sat through similar cases, not this case itself, i wasn't part of the reporting team in the run—up to it, but i have sat through other cases involving a mental health ill element, and the offender is charged with a crime and is brought to court, and at this stage it becomes apparent to both

the prosecution and defence that there may be mental health issues that have to look at. at that point the judge in the that have to look at. at that point thejudge in the preparatory that have to look at. at that point the judge in the preparatory stages of the case, says that if you are going to argue that the defendant's actions were influenced by mental ill health, you have to prove that the stopper has to be evidence was that you can't raise that flag and everyone to salute it. the case of valdo calocane, expert psychiatric reports were prepared by the defence and as a way is the case in a situation like this, the prosecution then instruct their own experts to see if that expert agrees with the defence or comes to a different conclusion. in some cases you actually get a bit of back and forth across the court. i can think of a particular terrorism case which i watch very carefully for a long time, in which there was complete disagreement between the defence and the prosecution about the precise mental condition of the defendant concerned. in this case we got to the point at sentencing where four

psychiatrists were all in agreement, across the prosecution and defence, that valdo calocane had been so acutely, was so acutely unwell because of this deep form of paranoid schizophrenia, which was almost untreatable, that he could not have been in control of his actions at the time, that his actions at the time, that his actions were basically triggered by an acute episode, and therefore it was right in the circumstances to accept his plea of guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, rather than go to a trialfor murder because responsibility, rather than go to a trial for murder because at that point thejudge would trial for murder because at that point the judge would have to say, you can't prove that he intended to do this in a moment when he was sane, because all the evidence suggests he is mentally very unwell in the circumstances. this is a really complex and delicate exercise. the courts go through it an awful lot. 0ften exercise. the courts go through it an awful lot. often it takes weeks and weeks to get there. in the case of valdo calocane those hearings that started in the autumn, at

nottingham crown court, where it became a parrot there were questions i had to be answered. i think from the outside, the difficulty is that the outside, the difficulty is that the ultimate conclusion whether or not an individual defendant is to mentally unwell to stand trial for murder, that only becomes often apparent literally in the moments before a trial, or the days before a trial is due to start, because it is that point whether evidence is brought together. this is a careful exercise that criminal courts go through an awful lot. aha, exercise that criminal courts go through an awful lot.— through an awful lot. a legal affairs correspondent - through an awful lot. a legal affairs correspondent at - through an awful lot. a legal affairs correspondent at the | through an awful lot. a legal - affairs correspondent at the royal courts ofjustice, thank you much indeed. lady chiefjustice baroness carr was one of the three senior judges that ruled that the sentence handed down to valdo calocane, that there was no error in it and it was not unduly lenient. let's listen back to her decision. fiur back to her decision. our conclusion. _

back to her decision. our conclusion. there - back to her decision. our conclusion. there was i back to her decision. our conclusion. there was no back to her decision. oi" conclusion. there was no error in the approach adopted by the judge. the sentences imposed were not arguably unduly lenient. leave to refer the sentences is refused. it is impossible to read of the circumstances of this offending without the greatest possible sympathy for the victims of these terrible attacks, and their families and theirfriends. the terrible attacks, and their families and their friends. the victim terrible attacks, and their families and theirfriends. the victim impact statements paint a graphic picture of the appalling effects of the offender's conduct. had the offender not suffered the mental condition that he did, the sentencing judge would doubtless have been considering a whole life term of imprisonment. but neither thejudge imprisonment. but neither the judge nor this

imprisonment. but neither thejudge nor this court can ignore the medical evidence as to the offender's condition. this led to these dreadful events, or the threat to public safety which the offender continues to pose. thank you very much. i continues to pose. thank you very much. ., ., ., ,, continues to pose. thank you very much. ., ., .,~ ., , much. i want to take you to the isle of man now— much. i want to take you to the isle of man now because _ much. i want to take you to the isle of man now because the _ much. i want to take you to the isle of man now because the debate - much. i want to take you to the isle of man now because the debate for| of man now because the debate for the right for terminally ill people on the isle of man to be helped to die has just started. on the isle of man to be helped to die hasjust started. let's on the isle of man to be helped to die has just started. let's have a listen in at the isle of man parliament to see what politicians are saying. parliament to see what politicians are sa inc. .,, , parliament to see what politicians aresa inc. , , ., are saying. has been fully informed of hospice. — are saying. has been fully informed of hospice, palliative _ are saying. has been fully informed of hospice, palliative and _ are saying. has been fully informed of hospice, palliative and other - of hospice, palliative and other care available to them, but the person has a clear and intention to end their own life, which has been reached voluntarily, on an informed basis, and without coercion or duress. subsection seven includes the safeguard that we are either the

attending dr, or the independent dr has doubts as to the capacity of the person who has made the decision to end their own life, they can ask a registered psychiatrist to examine the person and their medical records, and give their opinion regarding capacity. i am grateful to mr hooper, mr thomas for the proposed amendments which i feel clarify and strengthen the requirements, safeguards and convocations necessary. however i am concerned that the amendment number 21 on the order paper which it subsection nine, would weaken the responsibility of the assessing doctors and makes the whole process reliant on the views ofjust one psychiatrist who could then seem to override their professional views. with that i beg to move that clause six stays part of the bill.— six stays part of the bill. thank ou. six stays part of the bill. thank you. amendment _ six stays part of the bill. thank you. amendment number - six stays part of the bill. thank you. amendment number17. i six stays part of the bill. thank- you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed _ you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed amendment _ you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed amendment is _ you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed amendment is to _ you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed amendment is to add - you. amendment number17. thank you. my proposed amendment is to add into l my proposed amendment is to add into the list of those who are not able

to act as a witness to a person's declaration, someone who knows they will gain financially in the event of that person's death. the rationale for including this is to support the principle that the choice to request an assisted death should be the clearance settled voluntary wish of the terminally ill person, and those who witnessed the declaration of the terminally or person should not have a personal connection or derive potential benefit from the terminally ill person's choice. honourable members heard from our witnesses last week. i recall it was dr davis in particular who indicated that there seems to be little evidence in practice of coercion by family members, all those who may gain from the death of a loved one. on the contrary the evidence we heard was that family members tend to be very reluctant to support a terminally ill person's request for an assisted death. howeverthe ill person's request for an assisted death. however the amendment i believe is in line with the approach

that the terminally ill person should be making their own informed choice, without any interests of another person apparently or actually influencing that choice. the amendment covers those who know that they will gain financially in the event of a person's death. this is to recognise that there may be situations where an individual does not know, for example, that they have been named as a beneficiary and a well. so they would act in good faith in that circumstance as a witness to the declaration. mr speaker, i beg to move the amendment standing in my name. i beg speaker, i beg to move the amendment standing in my name.— standing in my name. i beg to second. grammatical- standing in my name. i beg to second. grammatical mr- standing in my name. i beg to i second. grammatical mr hooper standing in my name. i beg to - second. grammatical mr hooper to move _ second. grammatical mr hooper to move for— second. grammatical mr hooper to move for his amendments.- second. grammatical mr hooper to move for his amendments. thank you very much- — move for his amendments. thank you very much- there _ move for his amendments. thank you very much. there are _ move for his amendments. thank you very much. there are three _ move for his amendments. thank you very much. there are three minor - very much. there are three minor amendments i think to this clause coming from me, which are technical in nature and one of them i think is quite important. amendment 18 is a small technical amendment to ensure that two members of staff, who both

happen to work for manx care, and not able tojointly happen to work for manx care, and not able to jointly sign a declaration. it is easy to have doctors that are independent of each other but both happen to work for manx care as an organisation. amendment number 23 is a technical amendment which gives the power to amendment which gives the power to amend the schedule by way of approval. this is relatively straightforward. if you are going to prescribe a form on primary law it makes sense to have the ability to makes sense to have the ability to make minor alterations to that form, subject to approval. that approval is key. the schedule that the amendment refers to is purely the form of the declaration and nothing more, nothing less will stop a third amendment, the 22, slightly more important in terms of its policy change. the bill is present gives the department discretionary power to prescribe qualifications that medical profession must hold in order to undertake such a patient in the service. this amendment would wait the requirement mandatory on

the department and it must prescribe these qualifications and it is intended as a safeguard to ensure there is clarity on what qualifications will expect and to actually push the department of health and social care in this case to mandate and proscribing that in a statute. i beg to move the amendments in mine. aha, statute. i beg to move the amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas- i — amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. i would _ amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. i would like _ amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. i would like to _ amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. i would like to make - amendments in mine. a call on mr thomas. i would like to make the l thomas. i would like to make the move, thomas. i would like to make the move. the _ thomas. i would like to make the move, the department _ thomas. i would like to make the move, the department of - thomas. i would like to make the move, the department of health | thomas. i would like to make the . move, the department of health and social care and honourable members for agreeing my amendments last week. government will now have to draft, consult on then move on clause for now states assisted death needs to be a personal decision, reached voluntarily without coercion or duress having been informed on diagnosis and treatments available, including pain control and palliative care. i would like to move the amendment standing in my name today which are similarly practical. i also welcome the indication of support from the mover for the first two at least, and we

will come to discuss the third one. that is my only chance to comment on the other amendments. it seems to me that the amendments are eminently sensible and i will be supporting them. i do agree that the change from may to must is an important statement of the department of health and social care's engagement in all of this. that is absolutely fundamental if we are going to do this, we have to do with government support and do it right. amendment 19, the duty to seek psychiatrist�*s opinion, is to substitute may for must in respect of seeking an opinion from a registered psychiatrist, if either the attending or independent dr have doubts as to the capacity of the person making a request. i hope everyone agrees the importance of this psychiatrist�*s opinion and will support this amendment. amendment 20, psychiatrist to commit a non—delete might consider

non—medical information, is to insert, after medical, and other relevant, so the psychiatrist before giving an opinion under subsection seven, must examine the person who has made the decision to end their own life, and the person's medical and other relevant records. i imagine this would include multidisciplinary team records mentioned last week, and that the visiting medics who gave evidence last week, assumed would be available. i am last week, assumed would be available. iam not last week, assumed would be available. i am not qualified to imagine more about what these records might be, but other relevant records might be, but other relevant records should surely be available. i'm delighted the dr agrees that we should have other records there is this legislation becomes closer to law that is in place. in terms of amendment 21 the purpose of the psychiatrist�*s opinion on page eight and nine, that would be to admit subsection nine which means the psychiatrist�*s opinion is not only given only to assist the attending

dr, the independent dr is the case may be, in determining the capacity of the person to make that decision to end their own life, but it is important in its own right, that was my point. surely the psychiatrist�*s opinion is important and cannot be ignored. we need more detail about how this will work. that's the point i've been trying to make throughout that we need to understand whether or not it is the case that the psychiatrist dependent from start but my intention was to make sure this decision is taken properly and it would seem to me that whenever the votes are on this amendment it's something the rest of the council would have to look out because we need the right process to make sure all of the opinions and all the considerations are there and that everything is taken seriously. i beg to move three movements standing in

my name.