Assisted Dying needs more debate, and in the Commons

It is a rare occasion indeed when I agree with the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He recently introduced an amendment to the Coroners’ Bill that is currently going through the House of Lords at the moment to clarify the situation regarding the law on Assisted Suicide. In what was an excellent debate all round, and showed the Lords at its best (even if I disagree with its outcome), Lord Falconer opened the debate very well and I copy it in full below:

“7 July 2009 : Column 596

“Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not a crime to travel abroad to be assisted in dying in a country where assisted dying is lawful. Nobody proposes to change that position, either by amendment or suggestion, in this Bill. However, it is thought to be a crime to accompany your loved one to such a country abroad for assisted dying, and the maximum sentence for such a crime is currently 14 years. I say “thought to be” because, although the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Purdy proceeded on the basis that it was a crime, and the counsel representing the Director of Public Prosecutions and that representing Mrs Purdy accepted that it was a crime, in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House a point has been raised by the Law Lords to the effect that it might not be a crime. That matter is currently being debated before the Judicial Committee of this House. We have to proceed on the basis that it is a crime, because that is the latest ruling of the higher courts.

“We know that in the past seven years, 115 people from this country have gone to Switzerland for an assisted suicide. Some of them have been investigated by the police, while some of those cases have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In none of the cases has a prosecution been brought under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, despite the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that he has considered in a number of cases that the evidential requirements of the Act have been satisfied. Nobody wishes to prosecute in those cases, because nobody, in my view correctly, has the stomach to prosecute in cases of compassionate assistance. The attitude of the police and prosecution authorities means that they have, for entirely understandable reasons, created a legal no man’s land. The consequence is that there is no clarity.

“The lack of clarity has a number of bad effects. The first bad effect is that some people do not allow their loved one to accompany them to a country where assisted dying is lawful, because they fear that after their death, their loved one may be investigated and prosecuted. With respect to them, I mention Mr and Mrs Syd Robbins, who had been married for 34 years. Mrs Dorothy Robbins had motor neurone disease; she travelled to Switzerland for an assisted dying and went alone, refusing to allow her husband, Mr Syd Robbins, to accompany her for fear that he would be prosecuted. There is no suggestion that that case was anything other than one of compassionate assistance. The problem that Mr and Mrs Robbins faced is the same problem that Mrs Purdy has faced, which is why she has brought proceedings, so far unsuccessfully, up to and including the Court of Appeal, to seek some indication that her partner, if he accompanies her to Switzerland for an assisted dying, will not be prosecuted.

“There is, in my respectful submission, something wrong with a law that is never enforced, but has the effect of depriving people of the compassionate assistance that I believe every single Member of this House, including those who have written letters to the newspapers about this, would think these people were entitled to. The problem goes further than that. The second problem is that the current law offers no safeguard for those who go for an assisted dying mistakenly believing that they are more ill than they are. Looking at five of the cases where people have gone to Switzerland, it has transpired that people in great distress and in great pain had in fact been suffering from such conditions as bad back pain or diabetes and had no underlying terminal condition. Because the law provides no safeguards whatever at the moment, no doctor had ever looked at those cases in the United Kingdom and the consequence was that those people went without any consideration of their medical condition.

“The third problem in the law as currently enforced is that there may be cases of abuse—what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and those who wrote to the Times referred to as “malicious encouragement to suicide”. That is something we would all wish to stop. Currently, the only safeguard in that respect is the fear of prosecution. My amendment would not remove the fear of prosecution in those cases. Instead, it would add further safeguards. I say “my amendment”, but the proposal that we make in our amendment is as follows. It should not be a crime if you accompany someone to a country where assisted dying is lawful if the sole purpose of your accompanying them is to assist them in going to the place where assisted dying is lawful. Two medical practitioners must have certified that the person you are accompanying is suffering from a terminal illness and those same two medical practitioners must have certified that the person going has the capacity to make a declaration to the effect that the medical certificates have been read by them or to them and that they freely wish to go for an assisted suicide.

“A number of points have been made about these safeguards. In an incredibly well written article in the Daily Telegraph this morning, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that doctors do not want to have anything to do with it. No doctor would be forced to have anything whatever to do with this if they did not want to. However, if a defence is to be made that can be relied on, it would require that two doctors independent of each other had certified that someone was terminally ill. That is two doctors more than look at the matter currently.

“The second point that has been made in relation to the safeguards proposed is that our amendment contains no definition of terminal illness. I am prepared to leave it to the good sense of two doctors as to whether or not someone is terminally ill. I am more than happy to listen very closely to the views of this House about whether that is the right approach. By terminally ill, I mean something along the lines of the definition contained in the 2006 Palliative Care Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which states that,

“terminal illness” means an illness, disease or condition which—

(a) is inevitably progressive and fatal, and

(b) the progress of which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

“The third point is how you deal with the passage of time after the granting of the declaration by the person. I thought very carefully about that before the drafting of the amendment. It is implicit in my amendment and that is why I did not think it was necessary to say that the safeguards—namely, the certificate of the two doctors and the declaration by the person travelling abroad for an assisted suicide—apply to the act of going abroad and having an assisted dying. Otherwise, there would of course be no point whatever in the safeguards. I believe that to be implicit, and that the courts would unquestionably construe the amendment in that way.

“The fourth objection to the safeguards is there being no definition of capacity. Remember—one of my safeguards is that the person making the declaration must have the capacity to do so. My reason for not including a definition of capacity is that, as many noble Lords will remember, comparatively recently Parliament passed the Mental Capacity Act, which would without much doubt apply here. For the avoidance of doubt, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that Section 62 of the Mental Capacity Act says that the reference to capacity in the Act does not apply to murder, manslaughter or Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. Again, I considered that before tabling the amendment and took the view that it was obvious, as a matter of drafting, that that section would not apply to the amendment. I would very much welcome noble Lords’ views on that.

“The reason that I proposed this amendment, along with my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is that it is absolutely plain that the law is being marginalised. The law is not being applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions because it plainly no longer fits the current situation. The result of the law not being applied is that we have the horror of people going earlier to clinics abroad, without their loved ones being there on the day that they die. Equally, the law provides no protection or safeguard against abusive people, or for those under a mistaken impression of what illness they have. The only current safeguard is the fear of prosecution. That is not removed because the declaration must be made freely.

“What are the objections to my amendment? First, it is said that this is a slippery slope; it is the beginning of a change. However, it is the law that people can go to Switzerland; that is the existing position. Is it fair and right to allow greater abuse than would be allowed if my amendment were passed by this House and the other place, and at the same time to have a situation where people go abroad to die without their loved ones? It is not a slippery slope. The amendment deals with the immediate position. Secondly, there are spiritual objections to my amendment. I do not seek to deal with these. They must be made, but in the context of the existing position. The third objection to my amendment is the idea that, before you make a change such as this, there should be a full-blown consultation. Of course, if we were making a change about assisted dying in this country, there should be a consultation. The difficulty is that the law has already been overtaken by events. It is, I believe, absolutely necessary for the law to reflect a situation that did not exist in 1961.

“I very much welcome the debate that will now take place on the amendment. I have set out—I hope with clarity—my reasons for proposing the amendment. It is a very important debate and I greatly welcome the contributions that will be made. I beg to move.”

Obviously, there were contributions on both sides which were put extremely eloquently and movingly, and I have the utmost respect for those on the opposite side of the argument.

I, personally, cannot find fault with any of Lord Falconers arguments. It is plainly absurd that this law is there and yet it is not used, whilst loved ones of the terminally ill have the prospect hanging over them of being prosecuted for releasing their loved ones from pain. I have my own personal reasons for supporting such a reform.

A few years back a Bill was introduced into the Lords to reform the law but their Lordships voted for an amendment which effectively kicked the Bill into the long grass. The quality of debate was, as now, very high, with some very informed speakers.

Now, however, it is time for the House of Commons to debate this issue properly and fully. For too long the House has ducked the issue and left it to the Lords but there is, I believe, a growing momentum in the country for reform. The Commons should be responding to that growing momentum and debate this properly, in government time.

Lords right to criticise the Parliamentary Standards Bill

The House of Lords’ Constitution Committee has heavily criticised the government’s attempt to fast-track legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny and consultation. Perhaps the most damning part of their Lordships report is at paragraph 23:

“We are wholly unpersuaded by the Government’s case for this bill to be fast-tracked. There is an undoubted need to restore public confidence in the parliamentary system. It is not, however, clear to us that a cobbled together bill rushed through Parliament will help rebuild public trust; on the contrary, if Parliament cannot be seen to be scrutinising proposals with the thoroughness they deserve, public confidence in parliamentarians is likely to be further undermined. Governments should find the strength to resist falling into a temptation simply to see something done, which is no substitute for properly prepared policy and legislation.”

It is quite evident that something needs to be done about the whole scandal surrounding MPs’ expenses and their remuneration. The aims and objectives of the Bill are agreeable to all and the measures are, on the whole, laudable. But that doesn’t mean that the legislation shouldn’t be properly scrutinised, otherwise we end up with more bad legislation on the statute book and the system could need reforming again sooner rather than later.

At the moment, far too much legislation goes by with relatively little scrutiny and it falls onto the House of Lords to conduct the necessary and proper scrutiny to ensure that the resulting law is somewhere near half-decent. Perhaps the Government would be better off waiting for the results of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life’s inquiry into the scandal and the reforms necessary and then legislate with proper scrutiny.

Tory London Assembly Member has right argument, but wrong application

There has been considerable anguish in the Tory party recently over the statement of one of our London Assembly Members – Brian Coleman. He said in a recent interview:

“They are not entitled to drool over our personal lives. I'm not going to help the mad, bad and the sad, the bloggers on the internet. I'm not pandering to mob rule. It undermines democracy to suggest that all MPs, all politicians are the spawn of Beelzebub”

This was his answer in response to a question over why he wasn’t voluntarily publishing his expense claims, saying it was “none of the public’s business”.

He has the right argument – there are certain elements of a politicians private life which should be off limits to the public and the media. Only if a private action of a politician is hypocritical of a public utterance do I consider it fair game. Not all politicians are bad, in fact I would go so far as to say that 75% are actually good public servants who have been badly let down by the errant 25% who had damaged the standing of politics even more.

Mr Coleman’s application of the principle, however, is completely wrong. How he has spent taxpayers’ money is, of course, a legitimate matter of public concern. He should have published his details along with his colleagues. I am glad that pressure has been brought to bear on him and that he is now publishing his expenses claims voluntarily.

However, Mr Coleman is not out of the woods yet. He has got to be re-selected by his party and re-elected by his constituents. Whether this issue harms him in the future, only time will tell.

Queen institutes the Elizabeth Cross

I was absolutely delighted yesterday to read in the news that HMQ has, on the advise of the Armed Forces, decided to create the Elizabeth Cross, which will be available to the families of those who have lost loved ones in the Armed Forces.

To me, things like this feel proud to be British and of our monarchy.

Gone to look after her pussy – RIP Mrs Slocombe

One of my earliest memories is of watching Grace and Favour, the follow-up series to the workers of Grace Brothers from Are You Being Served?, and my love for all of the old comedies probably stems from watching things like Grace and Favour, AYBS? and Only Fools and Horses in my childhood.

Earlier this year, one of the greatest icons of our age died – Wendy Richard, aka Miss Brahms – and a few years ago we lost John ‘I’m Free’ Inman. Now another of them has left us – Mollie Sugden.

Mrs Slocombe’s double entendre will never be forgotten, from her pussy to never responding to any mans finger, her performances as Mrs Slocombe are still shown around the world and she will never be forgotten. Having all of AYBS? on DVD (the ones released so far), I was watching episodes only last afternoon, I still find them all hilarious, and they continue to give joy to people today.

R.I.P. Mollie Sugden

Speaking for Myself by Cherie Blair – Book Review

I have to admit that I went into reading Speaking for Myself going in with all of the pre-conceived notions of being a Conservative and all that that stands for. However, my respect for her as a lawyer has always remained undiminished.

In what is quite a frank and open autobiography with all the juicy bits left in, I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by this autobiography. I even found myself being endeared by Cherie Blair, and that will shock quite a few of my friends. Highly readable, well written and humorous, I couldn’t recommend it enough.

Obviously being in the shadow of the PM can be a difficult place to be, and only now can Cherie properly articulate her side of the story without going into battle with the No 10 machinery and the newspapers. She has made some terrible clangers in the past, which she herself admits, and has on occasion overstepped what I believe a Prime Ministerial consort should do, but you cannot question her integrity. Finding herself a place as the Prime Minister’s consort and maintaining your own independence, which she clearly had before entering No 10, was always going to be difficult and she gives a candid account of her struggle to be true to herself and going up against the establishment.

Furthermore, I don’t think anyone can deny that being the consort of the PM actually harmed her legal career rather than helping it. Had Tony Blair not become PM then I undoubtedly believe that Cherie would be a High Court judge by now. She has the legal and intellectual capability to do it, and I would welcome it. Despite our politics, I would be more than happy to see her sitting on the benches of judiciary.

Her sense of humour also comes over well in this book, and if I were to compile a list of my five ultimate dinner guests I have to admit that I would be quite tempted to have Cherie Blair on that list. The debate over politics and the law could be quite and interesting dinner party!

A Fortunate Life by Paddy Ashdown – Book Review

One of the things that I enjoy about going on holiday, apart from the time away and the sunshine, is the opportunity to catch up on my reading without all of the distractions of modern day life. The autobiography of Paddy Ashdown – A Fortunate Life – was one of the books that I got to catch up on.

The title, A Fortunate Life, is very apt, as becomes abundantly clear when you read his autobiography. From being in the SBS to being a Foreign Office spy (which he has kept all of the operational details confidential, as he should do) to leading the Liberal Democrats and then going to Bosnia, this book was one that I couldn’t put down.

Ashdown is perfectly candid about everything, including his affair, and some of his army stories are hilarious. To the student of modern politics and the rise of New Labour it is also an invaluable resource. And, it has to be admitted by all sides, he was ahead of the game on the Serbian Question of the 1990s, and it was this that made him uniquely qualified to become the High Representative to Bosnia & Herzegovina and help with the rebuilding.

Following on from his exploits in Bosnia, he talks about the offer to go and help Afghanistan following the invasion. Although he wanted to enjoy his retirement, and rightly so, he saw it as his duty, if asked, to go to Afghanistan as we are sending our armed forces there for our country. I think that he would have been a very good facilitator in Afghanistan with his knowledge and experience, and having made the move to statesman would have been able to get much more done with the international community. It is just a shame that President Karzai of Afghanistan played silly beggars and scuppered the whole enterprise.

Ministers should be bound too

Whilst I agree with almost everything in the Parliamentary Standards Bill, which is long over due, there is one thing that is niggling at me - if the Code of Conduct is legally binding on MPs and Lords, why isn't the Ministerial Code of Conduct going to be legally binding?

Bercow should heed the words of Speaker Lenthall

"May it please your Majesty that I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak such as this House shall direct me"

These are the words that Speaker Lenthall uttered when he stood up to Charles I when he tried to arrest Cromwell. Bercow would do well to remember this in the coming weeks and months ahead - he is the servant of the House, not its master.

Bercow's role is to be an enabler and to ease the transition of the House into transparency. He should be doing his work behind the scenes like any good negotiator. A nudge here and a stern word there are what he should be doing.

Neither is his role to reconnect Parliament and the public. Quite frankly it is the role of the political parties and the politicians to reengage with the voter.

The international community has been too slow over Iran

Hardly a day goes by without Iran being in the news, and each day the news seems to get worse. Today the news has been dominated by the murder of the poor music student, who has now become the symbol for this emerging revolution, and the diplomatic tit-for-tat.

International reaction, particularly from Obama and Brown, has been far too slow. The momentum has been building and they are now coming late to the lecturn to issue condemnation.

Both Obama and Brown need to ratchet up the pressure. By responding to the expulsion of our diplomatic staff by doing likewise is welcome. I understand that they have been careful not to play into the hands of Ahmedinijahd, but they could have brought the international community along much quicker.

Unfortunately Obama has failed to provide the leadership he promised over this issue, but both he and Brown will have to get much tougher and bolder from here on in.