Mr.
Gray: The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. Her
circumstances in the Bridgend constituency are quite different from
those discussed by the hon. Member for Cambridge. Within the context of
internet-assisted suicides, there are two categories to discuss. One
led to the case in Bridgend in which Facebook and similar social sites
assisted or encouraged suicide. That is quite different from the sort
of suicide I will be discussing in one
moment.
Mr.
Boswell: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for
Bridgend, does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the difficulties
that we face operationally is that while there are two different
categories—she is right to remind the Committee of
that—there is only one law on suicide. That would suggest a
certain reticence about modifying that law and not, in effect, leaving
a degree of flexibility in its interpretation to experts in the medical
profession in relation to assisted dying, rather than seeking to codify
everything in a way that meets one need at the expense of intensifying
a problem
elsewhere.
Mr.
Gray: We are getting into the meat of the discussion and
mixing up two different types of category. I want to avoid that and
seek to address them separately.
Sharp-eyed
members of the Committee will have noticed that my name was down
against amendment 9, until I asked for it to be removed. Amendments 9,
422 and so on remove the
expression “capable
of encouraging or assisting the
suicide” and
replace them with
“that encourages
or assists the
suicide”. My
hon. and learned Friend tabled the amendments as probing amendments,
but they seem to do exactly the opposite with regard to the Bill. I
feel strongly about the matter, which is why I volunteered to serve in
Committee.
I had two constituency cases involving young teenagers, both of whom
killed themselves in particularly unpleasant ways thanks to the use of
the internet. I then became involved with the organisation Papyrus, and
I pay tribute to the work that it has done. It discovered that
46 suicides carried out by teenagers were aided by these
extraordinarily vicious and nasty websites. I will not
name those sites, because I do not want to encourage people to access
them. If any hon. Member were to type into Google, “How to kill
yourself”, the material that would flash up on to the screen is
simply disgusting—it is the most vicious and nasty stuff that I
have ever come across. Without disturbing the Committee too much, I
want to share a couple of brief examples, such as:
“‘Tie
piano wire around your neck and jump from a high height. Your momentum
will cause you to be decapitated before you hit bottom’, says
one entry. Other failed suicide cases argue that because both
self-drowning and shooting can go wrong—in a drowning
‘the body will fight to breathe’, and some gunshots
‘miss the brain altogether, taking out both eyes but leaving you
alive’—it is best to stand in a river and then shoot
yourself”.
Others give details of
precisely which concoction of pills a person should take. Some websites
talk about alcohol. One is
headlined: “How
to Kill Yourself Using Inhalation of Carbon Monoxide
Gas”. and
shows pictures of how to do
it. There
are about 30 or 40 pages of material that go through all possible ways
for people to kill themselves in huge detail. The descriptions are
immense, graphic and revolting. The sites tend to be accessed neither
by those whom we were talking about a moment ago nor necessarily by
intelligent and sensible people. They tend to be accessed by teenagers,
who are often suffering from depression. The teenagers go on to the
web, look up the sites and can carry out their suicides within a few
moments of deciding to do so. If they had to find such material in the
library, they might get over the immediate instinct of wanting to act
in such a
way. We
know of 46 cases of teenagers who have killed themselves as a result of
such sites and no doubt many more have not been reported to Papyrus.
Along with other organisations, it has been discussing with the
Government what can be done to stop such sites for a long time. Most
sensible people agree that such sites must be stopped. The matter is
complicated by the fact that most sites are based overseas and that the
British Government cannot dictate to overseas Governments what they
should do in their criminal law, although there is the argument that if
we outlaw certain things in this country, other civilised nations will
follow. Australia and Japan have made notable efforts to stop suicide
websites. The
Government have attempted under clauses 46 to 48 to achieve something,
albeit not as perfectly as we would have liked. They have openly said
that the provision is more or less a modernisation of the Suicide Act
1961 and that it does not introduce a new offence or a new way of
stopping the sites, but that it clarifies the intent behind the 1961
Act with particular reference to what can be done using the
internet. I
want the Government to take further action. The two clauses do not go
quite far enough, although I readily accept the difficulties that they
are labouring under. I want to explore whether the offence would bear
extradition from overseas countries with which we have extradition
treaties. After all, if we are to send people to prison for 14 years if
sites take place onshore, why should British people in overseas
countries not be treated similarly? Extradition is one area
that we should
explore. How
the internet service providers supply such material is another area
that is well worth exploration. It may even be that today’s
debate and the knowledge that the Bill will become law will encourage
ISPs to find ways of taking down such sites—if they know that a
site is illegal in the United Kingdom, I hope that they are encouraged
to act. The Bill does not go far enough, but I welcome the two clauses,
which are a definite move in the right direction. The Government have
acted: they have listened to those who suffer from such activity and
are seeking to find a way in which to get the sites
stopped. Bearing
in mind that the aim behind the clauses is to stop the disgraceful
sites, examples of which I have given, the problem with the amendments
tabled by my hon. and learned Friend is that they would weaken the
ability of the courts to take such action. The Government are seeking
to tighten up the Suicide Act 1961, which currently prohibits actions
by “A
person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or
an attempt by another to commit
suicide”. That
form of words is out of date, and it has been updated by the two
clauses. The Government propose to replace the offence of aiding,
abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of a person with an
offence relating to acts that are
“capable of
encouraging or assisting
suicide”. The
amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Harborough would change “capable of” encouraging or
assisting suicide to actually encouraging or assisting. The difficulty,
if some sick-minded person somewhere or other around Britain is
creating such vile websites, is proving that they assisted a person to
commit suicide. It would be necessary for there to be a suicide and for
there to be a direct causal link between that suicide and the web. It
is almost impossible to imagine any circumstance in which a particular
suicide could be linked to a particular internet site. That is why my
hon. and learned Friend’s amendment weakens the intent behind
the Bill as drafted by the
Government. 4.45
pm Whether
or not it can be proved that such a site resulted in a suicide, if
someone creates such sites, the intention is clearly to encourage
people to commit suicide. Even if that intention cannot be
demonstrated, none the less the person is guilty of a very grave
offence, which is subject to a 14-year prison
sentence. The
hon. Member for Cambridge has said that there is a risk, and I entirely
sympathise with what the Samaritans has said. The risk is that there
are some worthwhile sites that allow teenagers to discuss their
suicidal feelings. For example, parents might send messages to children
saying, “Please don’t commit suicide”. There are
circumstances in which suicide could be discussed on the internet, and
we would not want the Bill to interfere with the perfectly good sites
that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. However, as drafted, the Bill
makes it absolutely plain that the people who create such sites with
the intention of assisting people to commit suicide are committing a
heinous criminal offence and will be
prosecuted and go to prison for up to 14 years. That is entirely
laudable, so I very much support the two clauses proposed by the
Government and, sadly, disagree with my hon. and learned
Friend’s
amendments. Before
I move on, only one case so far has come to court. A gentleman called
Gary Howes was involved in encouraging suicide by e-mail, which is
similar, if not identical, to a website. He was acquitted, because
under existing legislation it was not possible to prove intent. He sent
people e-mails telling them how to commit suicide; it is believed that
they committed suicide as a result, but the court could not prove that
Gary Howes’s intent was for them to commit suicide. The clauses
are good, because it is not necessary to prove intent. In
particular—this is an area in which the courts have got in a
muddle before—one does not have to prove that people met face to
face. At the moment, one must demonstrate that the person carrying out
the offence and the person committing suicide have met face to
face—therefore the attempt is proven. The clauses remove the
necessity of meeting face to face and proving
intent. I
broadly welcome the intention behind clauses 46 to 48, although they do
not go far enough. The Government have expressed their intention
elsewhere of working with ISPs, Papyrus and other
organisations—there is a good all-party group on suicide
prevention in this place. The Government’s intention to stop
internet-assisted suicide is right, although they will probably not be
able to do it in the context of the Bill. However, I welcome their
intent and will work with them in any way that I
can. Turning
briefly to the Liberal Democrat amendments, it is unfortunate that the
extremely laudable intent behind clauses 46 to 48 has been muddled with
the highly controversial and difficult issue of assisted suicide. The
two things are entirely different, and it is unfortunate for them to be
somehow linked together. I speak here from a particular ethical
standpoint—I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East
and the organisation for which he is patron and chairman. I am
fundamentally and ethically opposed to all forms of euthanasia and of
encouraging death, and I am totally opposed to the notion of assisted
suicide, so I wholly agree with his standpoint. However, I readily
accept that such matters are difficult, delicate and complex. Some
people will have different views—it is right that the issue
involves a free vote—but my stance is wholly opposed to what the
hon. Member for Cambridge has
proposed. I
do not think it right to extend the debate on those delicate matters
here this afternoon, because to do so would fall into the very trap
that the Liberal Democrats have set for us. The purpose of the Bill is
to focus on internet-assisted suicide, not to get involved in the
difficult issue of euthanasia. Having glanced at the long title of the
Bill, I am amazed that the notion of assisted suicide is allowed to be
discussed. I am not for a second questioning your judgment,
Mr. Gale, but it seems to be a diversion away from the
intention of the
Bill.
David
Howarth: The simple fact is that the clause reforms the
whole law on assisting suicide. It does not merely change the law about
suicide websites. The Government could easily have come up with a
specific proposal covering that, but they chose not to do so. I said at
the start of my comments that I was worried about
that.
Mr.
Gray: The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the
Government somehow intended to open up the difficult matter of assisted
suicide by introducing these clauses. I do not think that that is
right, and having been involved in discussions with them for many years
on internet-assisted suicide, I know that they have introduced them for
precisely the right reasons. I suspect that those who are in favour of
euthanasia have taken this opportunity to divert a perfectly laudable
clause into a different debate. I will not take part in that debate. I
happen to disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman, and all my
life I have been totally opposed to any form of euthanasia, but I shall
not give into temptation by seeking a debate on the matter this
afternoon. We
should welcome clauses 46 to 48. I know that other hon. Members want to
speak—the hon. Member for Bridgend probably wants to do
so—so it would be wrong to extend the debate into that area, but
it is extremely regrettable that the long title allows the matter to be
discussed. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge is wrong and that
the issue does not become the main topic of debate when the Bill
returns to the Floor of the House, which would be quite wrong. The
Government’s proposals in clauses 46 to 48 are laudable, and I
hope that they become
law.
Mrs.
Moon: The early drafts of the Bill addressed a major
problem relating to suicide, media reporting. Numerous, well-documented
research papers in the UK and Australia show that high-profile,
disproportionate reporting has added to the number of people taking
their own lives. If suicide is portrayed on TV programmes and in press
reporting as being normal or even attractive, it can move people
towards seeing suicide as a solution to their problems. Such portrayal
can lead to social contagion, which can lead to further suicides, and
specific information on methods, which can generate additional use of
those
methods. The
editors’ code of practice is about to be revised. I saw an
advance, embargoed copy of it today, and it will be released on 9
March. The Press Complaints Commission has considered modifying the way
in which suicide is reported, and it accepts that inappropriate
reporting and information may add to the risk of people in a vulnerable
state of mind taking their lives. I am sorry that the Government have
not provided the opportunity in the Bill to consider that, and I am
particularly disappointed that they have not given coroners the power
to exclude the media from reporting the death of young people under the
age of 16. Sadly, we have lowered the bar on privacy in the
coroners’ courts when it comes to reporting life and
death. Clauses
46 to 48 make progress in a significant area. The hon. Member for
Cambridge asked whether we are modernising legislation for the sake of
modernisation. My answer is no; we are modernising because we live in a
modern world where the assistance that people are turning to and the
encouragement that people are vulnerable to are in a new
medium—the digital medium of the internet. In her review,
“Safer Children in a Digital World”, Professor Byron
emphasised the use of the internet to encourage or assist suicide, and
recommended that the matter be brought in line with the 1961 Act. I
therefore commend the Government for taking action today.
In covering
the deaths in Bridgend, the media filled the gap of understanding about
the multiple clusters of suicides with the story of an internet death
cult. I do not know how many times that I have to say this, but there
was no such cult in Bridgend and the social networking sites were not
involved in encouraging people to take their lives. What we had was a
major problem of undiagnosed mental illness, which then became a
problem of social contagion. There were many things to address about
what was happening in Bridgend, but an internet death cult was
certainly not present.
When the
story broke, I decided to find out what people were talking about. Like
the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I urge Members to go downstairs to
the Library and type in just a few words—they will be horrified.
Keith Hawton, Lucy Biddle and their colleagues have researched the
phenomenon. The search engines Google, Ask Yahoo! and MSN produce sites
that provide information on methods, success rates of methods and the
pain associated with different methods. Members might even blunder into
a chat room, where they would find themselves being actively encouraged
not to contemplate taking their lives but to take their lives. Those
chat rooms praise people who have done that and support suicide
pacts.
The hon.
Member for Cambridge mentioned that risk when he mentioned his concerns
about discussing and exploring suicide methods. Such chat rooms are
different from an e-mail from me to a friend saying, “I’m
confused, hurting and thinking.” We are talking about chat rooms
where people’s anxieties are deliberately lessened, where the
anxieties and fears of those who are uncertain are removed, where the
uncertainty about taking that final step is belittled, and where people
are told, “Move forward; such and such is the way to do it. So
and so did it, and it was good for
them.” A
study by Pierre Baume and his colleagues observed that people posting
notes in chat rooms concerning suicide are often unsure, but they are
encouraged and strengthened by the replies that they receive, which
often means that changing their mind to seek help and support becomes
more difficult. People are not encouraged to seek help and support, and
they are taught, told and indoctrinated that there is only one way
forward.
A young man
from Bournemouth university, who was looking at the issue as part of
his studies, came to see me. He went into one of those chat rooms and
was deeply frightened by what he experienced there. Even though he was
neither emotionally vulnerable nor personally contemplating suicide, he
was still frightened at the pressure that he received. Imagine that
experience if one were unsure about one’s self and one’s
life. 5
pm The
research at the university of Bristol found 240 sites in the
top 10 hits in the four main search engines. We are not talking about
one or two but 240 that could be found—possibly, even more could
be found today in the Library—and one in five of them were
dedicated suicide sites. Half of them encouraged and promoted suicides,
and half contained personal and other accounts of methods; 12 sites
were chat and discussion forums of methods used.
Only 13 per
cent. of the sites offered support and preventive advice. In my
understanding of the legislation—I appreciate that I am not a
lawyer—those who offer
support and preventive advice would not be encouraging and assisting,
and that is the big difference. Other sites—they are called
recipe sites—do not offer support or advice, or seek to get
someone to turn to others for advice and
information. Papyrus
has written to me regarding the legislation. As the hon. Member for
North Wiltshire said, it has evidence that deaths that have taken place
as a result of websites. Two requirements are needed for a successful
prosecution of assisting suicide: first, an act of assisting and,
secondly, a demonstration of intent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the
case of Regina v. Gary Howes, which a judge rejected on the
grounds that the action was merely preparatory and that a face-to-face
meeting would be required before the case could be brought before a
jury. The
hon. and learned Member for Harborough questioned the need for proposed
new subsection (1A), and I understand that that clause would remove the
need for the face-to-face meeting that currently appears to be
required. Since 2006, a legislative approach to the problem of suicide
sites and chat rooms has been taken in Australia, where it is illegal
to use the internet to promote the idea or to provide practical details
concerning suicide, and internet service providers and countries, such
as Japan and South Korea, have attempted to block specific sites. The
use of legislation to track down child pornography sites has set a
precedent for this sort of legislation.
Last
week’s Guardian contained an article by Robert Booth with
the chilling statistic that specialist officers from CEOP—the
Home Office child exploitation and online protection
centre—receive an average of four alerts a day from children who
are about to meet suspicious persons or who are suicidal because they
have been comprehensively
groomed.
| 
