The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Maria
Eagle): Daniel
James.
Mr.
Garnier: That is right. I thank the Minister. Daniel
James’s parents took him to Switzerland, where he died, and the
DPP decided that it was not in the public interest for them to be
prosecuted under the 1961
Act. Personally,
I happen to agree with what the DPP said and did—although that
will not make his life any easier or make any difference to it.
However, there is an advantage in what I would call a pragmatic English
muddle. The more we tighten up this aspect of the criminal law, the
more likely it will lead to prosecutions where many people do not want
them or, possibly, to an absence of prosecutions where people want
them. Although many may think the law untidy and
unsatisfactory—this is not a party political issue or a matter
on which my
party is whipped—I prefer the approach that
the DPP took of his own accord in deciding in the James matter not to
prosecute. Again personally and not on behalf of my party, I applaud
the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, for adding his observations in the
Purdy case. I only hope
that by cramming clauses 46 to 48 into the Bill, and having only a
short discussion on them, we do not do more harm than good and make a
lot of people more upset with what we achieve in the legislation. I
leave my comments there, because I do not intend to press the matter to
a vote—I simply wanted to provoke a discussion. If we can have
one, and inform the other place, it can then inform us what it thinks
about the clauses, so it may be that despite the unsatisfactory process
that we are going through, some good may come of it. Currently, I am
not convinced that what we are doing as a matter of
process—forget the substantive law—is a sensible way
forward. 4.15
pm David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I agree with a great deal of the
hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, especially on the
question of how to deal with issues that are so important and
sensitive. I regret that the matter, which should be dealt with by
itself in a separate Bill, has come up in the middle of a catch-all
piece of legislation. It seems to be the perfect example of where there
should be a private Member’s Bill, which should be given
Government time to ensure that it cannot be blocked by the usual Friday
tactics, where hon. Members on both sides have a proper discussion
about where the law, in this particular area, should be
going.
There are two
areas that I want to mention. The first is the problems that seem to
arise regarding how the clauses have been drafted, and there are number
of difficulties, especially the concerns that Samaritans has put
forward about the effect that that might have on teenagers. Secondly, I
acknowledge openly that the Bill puts in play the whole area of
assisted suicide. I suspect that that matter will dominate the Report
stage, which some of us—on both sides of the debate about
assisted suicide—might regret. Therefore I do not think that
that is a satisfactory way of resolving this particular sort of
issue.
Maria
Eagle: Given that what we are discussing is in part a
criminal law reform Bill, it would be within its scope whether or not
there are no provisions in the Bill that relate to the Suicide Act 1961
itself.
David
Howarth: I do not want to anticipate what the House
authorities might decide in that kind of case—it depends on what
is in the Bill. But it seems that any questions about that issue, one
way or the other, are put entirely beyond doubt because the Bill
contains the clauses.
I start with
the problems with the clauses as they are drafted. As the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough said, there is a question about whether
the clauses broaden the scope of the existing law in a way that goes
beyond the Government’s intentions. The Government say that the
purpose is not to change the law in any radical way, to leave it as it
is, but to modernise it—we are back to that word from this
morning. That is a dangerous thing to do, in my view: to modernise for
the
sake of modernising. There are concerns that the
draft goes well beyond simply modernising the language of the law. The
hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Purdy case, the technicalities
of which are about the extent to which the courts can
intervene early in the process. The question there, which is separate
from the content of the law, is whether the DPP should be thought of as
having some sort of dispensing power in respect of the law. Beyond that
point there is the question of the content of the law itself. A number
of organisations are concerned that the Government intend to ensure
that the law is broadened in such a way as to make the Purdy
case impossible on the facts—the merits and the
substance—of the law, rather than simply on the technicalities
in respect of what the powers of the court might
be. Liberty
has expressed a concern that one of the effects of the Bill
might be to make more vulnerable to prosecution the friends and family
members of those who help loved ones go overseas for assisted suicide.
I should like to hear the Minister’s view about whether the
clause is intended to change the law on that specific
question.
David
Howarth: I am glad to hear it and I am sure that a lot of
people around the country are glad to hear it,
too. The
clause takes away the need for the specific targeting of a particular
person to encourage or assist in committing suicide. That relates to an
issue that Samaritans has raised. As the parent of recently teenage
boys, I find this a difficult but important issue. We cannot pass
legislation for symbolic or political reasons and then find that it has
awful side effects. Samaritans has
said: “we
feel that it is important to ensure that action can be taken against
individuals who maliciously target vulnerable people...in this
way.” I
am sure that all Committee members agree with that and, in parenthesis,
I am sure that we all agree that suicide websites that encourage
suicide are to be deplored. Samaritans’ brief
continues: “However,
we also feel that it is important to safeguard against criminalising
vulnerable people in a state of emotional distress who openly discuss
suicide related matters, including suicide methods, on the internet.
Samaritans believes that allowing people to explore suicidal thoughts
and feelings alleviates distress and helps people to reach a better
understanding of their situation and the options open to them. The
Government has stated that the update to the language of the Suicide
Act does not change the scope of the existing law and the Director for
Public Prosecutions appeared to concur with this when giving
evidence” before
the
Committee. “Yet
the stated position on the circumstances under which an individual can
be prosecuted for such offences online now appears inconsistent in part
and therefore we seek clarification on the legal implications for
emotionally vulnerable people who discuss suicide on the
internet.” I
am sure that the Minister has already noted this point and I hope that
she will be able to give the Committee the assurances that Samaritans
seeks and will say that the clause will not—not even by
accident—change the position so that a teenager is unable to
discuss their
problems. Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is
making an extremely interesting point. One might argue that people of a
vulnerable nature, of
the kind he is discussing, should be allowed to discuss their suicidal
feelings on the internet. However, how would he feel if those with
unnatural tendencies towards children were allowed to discuss those
tendencies on the internet in the same way? Does he not agree that
child pornography sites should be banned from the internet, even if it
prevents those people from discussing their
feelings?
David
Howarth: That is an entirely different case relating to
harm to other people. I speak as a parent of teenage boys; for me, this
is not just about politics, but about what will happen to many young
men in those circumstances. I seek an assurance that the Government
have taken into account that point. If they think that it will cause
problems of the sort that Samaritans highlighted, will they introduce
some adjustments? There are other problems with the Bill: the hon. and
learned Gentleman made the point about an impossible attempt, which
needs to be considered. However, in substance, that is nowhere near as
important as the point raised by
Samaritans. On
the general issue of assisted suicide, we proposed a series of
amendments purely on a probing basis. We have no intention of pressing
them to a vote. They would simply remove every “assisted”
in the clause, but leave “encouraging” as a crime. What
do the Government think is the difference between the two and the
extent to which “or assisting” adds to
“encouraging”? I think that we all agree that encouraging
suicide is wrong, but then the question arises of what is assisting
suicide in such circumstances. That puts on the agenda the question of
the legality of assisting suicide
itself. Mr.
George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab):
Surely the difference is that to encourage suicide is to contribute
towards the decision, whereas assistance follows the
decision.
David
Howarth: That is precisely my interpretation.
Encouragement takes place before a decision and pushes them in one
direction, which is wrong and should never be allowed. In my view,
assistance takes place after a decision has been taken. Then the
question arises of whether that should be illegal in the same way, but
it is a separate question.
I would like
to explain the Liberal Democrats’ position. In any given year,
throughout the country, fairly substantial numbers of people are
assisted in dying by medical practitioners of various sorts. Medical
practitioners are frank about that, although they will keep identities
out of the picture. The question is whether it is right to go along
with the English muddle that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned,
which I confess has some attractions, or whether we should be more open
and honest about the situation.
Dr.
Iddon: I shall declare my interest in this debate straight
away. I am patron of an organisation called Alert, which researches
euthanasia and assisted suicide, and provides me with much information
in that direction. I am also chairman of a national organisation
called, Care Not Killing, which opposes all forms of euthanasia,
including assisted suicide. I have heard anecdotal stories about
doctors bumping people off. A number of organisations have carried out
research that does not support what the hon. Gentleman has said this
afternoon.
4.30
pm
David
Howarth: I am talking about what medical practitioners and
academic medical researchers have told me of their own experiences.
Yes, in terms of research there are differences of view about numbers
and so on, but my point is that doctors have said this to me on various
occasions over the past 25 years. This is not a fantasy, although there
might be some discussion about the extent to which it
happens.
Maria
Eagle: There is, of course, a difference between doctors
hastening death with the intention to alleviate suffering by
administering painkilling medication, for example, and them
“bumping people off”, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Bolton, South-East put it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has had
discussions about the former rather than the latter
case.
David
Howarth: The correct answer to that is that perhaps they
were, perhaps they were not. I know what I
heard.
Dr.
Iddon: I want to dispel the myth that people can be killed
by increased doses of morphinoid painkillers. That is not the case.
Research shows that giving increased doses of morphine, or even heroin,
can kill more of the pain but not the patient. When that intense pain
appears, the patient is in such a terrible condition that they die
anyhow.
David
Howarth: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a chemist. I
accept what he says.
Let me put on
the record the position of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that there
should be high-quality palliative care and far more support for carers.
However, we believe that the legislative framework should change at
least in some cases. Sometimes our official position is characterised
as pro-euthanasia, but it is not—I would certainly not stand
here and support euthanasia. We are not even in favour of assisted
suicide in all cases, rather we are in favour of medically assisted
dying in cases of terminal illness or severe, incurable, progressive
physical illness where patients are without hope of recovery. That is
similar to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
In those
cases, doctors should be able to provide competent adults with
assistance to die if they have expressed the wish to do so within very
narrowly defined circumstances. Those include being able to demonstrate
to a medical practitioner and an independent person that the request to
die is voluntary, well-considered, persistent and motivated by existing
or inevitable unbearable suffering. The request must be made in writing
after full discussions about what is available in terms of palliative
care. It must be counter-signed by legal practitioners as well as
medical practitioners and must be repeated after a period of time.
Other safeguards could be imagined and brought forward.
My party
believes that that would respond to the real suffering of real families
in the real world. Some members of the Committee might find this
typical, but I should add that the motion passed in 2004 stated, as its
final line, that Liberal Democrat parliamentarians should have a free
vote on this issue.
David
Howarth: As the Minister says, typical. Nevertheless, it
is party policy and as the party spokesman in this area it is my duty
to put it on the record.
Mr.
Gray: First, I apologise for arriving late. I simply lost
track of the time. In particular, I apologise to my hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Harborough whose remarks I missed. I particularly
regret that because I am just about to disagree with what I imagine he
said.
This is a
particularly awkward group of amendments. It brings together two
extremely important and two extremely difficult matters as if they were
the same debate. As I said, I will disagree with what my hon. and
learned Friend said, and, from a personal standpoint, with what the
hon. Member for Cambridge said a moment ago. He and I could not differ
more on the particular matter of assisted suicide, but that is not the
most important part of my comments in today’s
debate. Mrs.
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman
agree that it might be helpful in this debate to differentiate between
assisted suicide—that is assisting young, fit, healthy people to
terminate their lives—and assisted dying to help those with a
terminal illness or those who are in great pain? If we could
differentiate between the two it might help to clarify the
debate.
| 
