Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 46, page 27, line 7, leave out

‘capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘that encourages or assists’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 178, in clause 46, page 27, line 7, leave out ‘or assisting’.

Amendment 179, in clause 46, page 27, line 9, leave out ‘or assist’.

Amendment 422, in clause 46, page 27, leave out lines 11 and 12.

Amendment 10, in clause 46, page 27, line 24, leave out

‘is capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘that encourages or assists’.

Amendment 180, in clause 46, page 27, line 25, leave out ‘or assisting’.

Amendment 423, in clause 46, page 27, leave out lines 28 to 33.

Amendment 181, in clause 46, page 27, line 28, leave out ‘or assisting’.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 12, in clause 47, page 28, line 6, leave out

‘capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘that encourages or assists’.

Amendment 424, in clause 47, page 28, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Amendment 13, in clause 47, page 28, line 23, leave out

‘is capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘encourages or assists’.

Amendment 425, in clause 47, page 28, leave out lines 27 to 32.

Clause 47 stand part.

Clause 48 stand part.

Amendment 14, in schedule 10, page 140, line 15, leave out

‘is capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘encourages or assists’.

Amendment 184, in schedule 10, page 140, line 15, leave out ‘or assisting’.

Amendment 15, in schedule 10, page 140, line 34, leave out

‘is capable of encouraging or assisting’

and insert ‘encourages or assists’.

Amendment 185, in schedule 10, page 140, line 35, leave out ‘or assisting’.

Amendment 186, in schedule 10, page 140, line 36, leave out ‘or assist’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 10, page 142, line 31, leave out from ‘information’ to end of line 33 and insert

‘encouraged or assisted suicide or an attempt at suicide, and was provided with that intention, or’.

Schedule 10 stand part.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

Once again, I make my formal complaint that such a huge issue has been spatchcocked into the Bill. If we are to do the subject justice, it should be treated in a separate Bill amending, if necessary, the Suicide Act 1961. However, as I may have said before, we are where we are, and we have to do the best we can, albeit with a very unsatisfactory process for dealing with a highly sensitive and legally complicated subject.

Clause 46 deals with encouraging or assisting suicide in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and it is fair to say that clause 47 produces a similar regime for Northern Ireland. Clause 48 deals with information society services, the bulk of which are dealt with by schedule 10.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale, your colleague—Mr. Cook—arranged for the room to be left at 1 o’clock, when we broke. This is a trivial point—I am not getting at anyone—but my papers have been moved, and I found them in a different place. That should not happen, and I hope that it will be noted, although I have no wish to pursue any individual. I am as near as certain that I did not move them myself, so somebody must have swept them up and repositioned them. It is important that that does not happen again. Forgive me for raising that matter, Mr. Gale, but I thought it would be more appropriate if I did so immediately, without disturbing the flow of my hon. and learned Friend’s argument.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

The authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am sure that it will not happen again, but I thank him for drawing the matter to our attention.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

Amendment 9 is similar to a number of other amendments in the group. It deals partly with a matter of English, but also provides the Government with an opportunity to explain with clarity what they intend to convey by the sections and subsections that contain the words

“capable of encouraging or assisting”.

Clause 46(2) provides that the Suicide Act be amended as follows:

“A person (“D”) commits an offence if...D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and...D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

It is clear from the amendment paper that we would substitute

“capable of encouraging or assisting”

with “that encourages or assists”, so that it covers a situation in which D does an act that encourages or assists. It may be a difference only of emphasis or of style, but I can only assume that the Government used the expression

“capable of encouraging or assisting”

for a reason, although I gather from the evidence sessions that it is not an unusual form of parliamentary drafting. From memory, I think that it has appeared in other legislation. I do not know about that, but we need to know more about what is behind the Government’s thinking. It is an unhappy expression, when dealing with such matters. For the criminal law to be clear, we need to make the English language suitably clear. As the clauses are drafted, there is an absence of clarity, which makes it difficult to divine precisely what would constitute the offence.

Amendment 422 would remove proposed new subsection (1A), which states that the

“person referred to in subsection (1)(a)”—

someone who does an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide—

“need not be a specific person (or class of persons) known to, or identified by, D.”

We want simply to tease out from the Government what they mean by that, or to know at whom the provision is directed. Sadly, many people are injured or killed by people they do not know. Many people who commit a criminal act cause injuries or even death to people they do not know, so it is not necessary for the individuals to be known to each other or to be identified by the person committing the criminal act. However, we need to be clear about the purpose of proposed new subsection (1A). To whom is it directed and what hole or lacuna in the law is it intended to correct?

Amendment 10 makes a further encouraging or assisting point. Amendment 423 deals with a proposed new section in the Suicide Act 1961 headed:

“Acts capable of encouraging or assisting”.

The provision suffers from the same imprecise language that I identified earlier. Proposed new section 2A(2) states:

“Where the facts are such that an act is not capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide, for the purposes of this Act it is to be treated as so capable if the act would have been so capable had the facts been as D believed them to be at the time of the act or had subsequent events appeared in the manner D believed they would happen (or both).”

I can imagine the joy of the judge when summing up such matters to the jury. The provision is so dense as to be almost incomprehensible. I assume that the draftsmen of the Bill and the Government are attempting to make it permissible to prosecute someone for attempting the impossible. If that is what they are attempting to do, why do they not say so? The provision is almost  impenetrable. If we are to adjust the law on encouraging or assisting suicide, it should be done in the clearest possible terms.

Amendment 425 covers the same point in the clause relating to Northern Ireland. Amendment 13 is another encouraging or assisting argument, so I shall not detain the Committee. Amendments 14 and 15 are in exactly that category as well.

We are looking at how the clauses fit into the Bill, with their intrinsic merits or demerits, as well as into the context outside, where a number of difficult cases have been in the public eye and tested in the courts. A case that has just left the Court of Appeal, with the Lord Chief Justice as president, involved a wife appealing from the court below—I am afraid I cannot remember her name, which is very rude of me; although it does not matter, if she and her husband will forgive me—

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Purdy.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

Mrs. Purdy originally applied to the High Court over something that might have led her husband into trouble with the criminal law under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. In essence, she wanted to be a given a free pass so that her husband could escort her to Switzerland when the time came to take her own life. She was fearful that he would be prosecuted for encouraging or assisting her in that potentially criminal act.

The High Court refused to decide the matter in a vacuum, as a matter of hypothesis, and the case was appealed. The Lord Chief Justice and his fellow judges in the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court. I hope that I do not misinterpret what I think was the Lord Chief Justice’s observation, which was not part of what we call the ratio decidendi—I thought the Minister would enjoy that. He observed at the end that no matter what the law is, it was unlikely that the courts would give a custodial sentence if someone was prosecuted in similar circumstances to Mrs. Purdy and her husband.

What the Lord Chief Justice said is clearly not binding on a sentencer, because in cases of that nature a sentencer has to look at the facts of the case. However, it was an interesting indication of how he was thinking and it certainly married with what the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Keir Starma, did in the case of the youngster aged 21, 22 or 23 who had severe injuries from a rugby game—

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

Daniel James.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

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.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

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 (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

No.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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 (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

George Howarth (Knowsley North & Sefton East, Labour)

Surely the difference is that to encourage suicide is to contribute towards the decision, whereas assistance follows the decision.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

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.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

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 (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

The correct answer to that is that perhaps they were, perhaps they were not. I know what I heard.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

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 (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

Typical.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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.

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 (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

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.

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.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is curious that it is illegal in this country to groom a child for sex but not illegal to groom a child for suicide.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

That is a helpful intervention. I am sure that the Government will have considered that point when looking at the legislation, and it is specifically covered in the clause.

When one needs to report someone who is making inappropriate sexual interventions towards a child, alerts are made through a “report abuse” button, which leads to a specialist trained police officer. I would welcome clarification about how the public, researchers and professionals will be able to alert authorities to the existence of websites with chat rooms that they fear are capable of or intend to assist or encourage the suicide or attempted suicide of another person.

Currently, there is no official body to which they can complain. Complaints can be directed to the police or the ISP. I have held meetings, however, with Microsoft, Google and other ISPs, which made it clear that they do not consider the policing role to be part of their function, although they are more than happy to respond to directions from the police, CEOP or the Internet Watch Foundation.

It seems clear that either a new independent body needs to be created to assess the legality of a site or, if necessary, ISPs need to be instructed to take down or  block such sites. Alternatively, the Internet Watch Foundation could include that function in its current remit. However, when that was discussed by the all-party suicide prevention group, which I chaired, the representative from the Internet Watch Foundation made it clear that it did not feel that it had the capacity to expand to include that remit.

Search engines, social networking sites and video-sharing sites, such as YouTube, and ISPs, have a clear responsibility to respond to key words, so that support sites, such as the Samaritans, can be optimised, but such site optimisation is not covered by the Bill.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is interesting to note that the Byron review stated specifically that, once these two clauses have been passed and such sites become illegal, sites that exist to promote suicide in a way that contravenes UK law should be taken down once the relevant ISPs have been notified of their existence. In other words, it will not be a question of the ISPs policing the web, but as soon as they have been informed of an illegal site, they should be reasonably expected to remove it.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

I am addressing the question of who will do the informing. Who has the authority to do that, and how will it take place? Will we have a button that says, “Press here to alert”, and to whom does that alert go? That is important.

I also think, however, that organisations such as social networking sites, video-sharing sites and ISPs can take many steps without legislation needing to be in place, to optimise help sites, such as the Samaritans. If someone types, “Ways of killing yourself” into a search engine, they should not immediately be taken to a recipe site, but to a helpful and supportive site. I believe that they have a moral obligation to pursue that in their own right. Some are doing that already, and I must say that I have been impressed with much of the work of social networking sites.

Biddle found that attempts are being made to clear up the web. For example, links to one prominent suicide site were often unavailable—it had already been blocked and removed. However, efforts to remove some of the more detailed and technical descriptions of methods seemed to be circumvented easily, and several sites provide access to almost identical files on suicide methods but under different names. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on concerns expressed to me that site authors could simply add disclaimers stating that they are not promoting suicide and, in so doing, argue that they are not assisting or encouraging suicide.

Mind has produced statistics showing that one in 10 five to 15-year-olds are clinically diagnosable with mental health problems. At-risk groups, especially teenagers who are lonely and isolated and who have low self-esteem, psychological disorders and poor relationships with parents and peers, value the internet in particular for its anonymity and the opportunity to experiment with identity and to share information and intimacy of thought. That is why we need to modernise our legislation.

The majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, while growing up, did not have the opportunity to experiment with identity, share information and intimacy of thought anonymously—through the internet—but our children and grandchildren do. That group is highly  vulnerable to being influenced by suicide sites, and it is therefore our responsibility to do all that we can to protect them.

It is also our responsibility to put in place all that we can to assist them. Australia, for example, has an excellent site called Reach Out! It is being expanded into the United States, Northern Ireland, and I have heard recently that Portugal has expressed an interest in it. A site such as Reach Out!, which has quite dramatically cut suicides among young people in Australia, gives young people a place where they can go safely—as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned—to explore and discuss suicide, suicide methods and suicidal thoughts, knowing that they will not be pursued and encouraged to take that step; quite the opposite will happen. We need to expand that secure setting, and we have a huge responsibility.

We also have a responsibility to warn our children of the risks. I recently produced two leaflets about internet safety—one for children and one for parents. I took them around my primary schools, and in each one, I talked to the top year—those who will go into comprehensive schools next year. In each class, I handed out the leaflets and asked the children to take one home to mum and dad. I asked how many of them knew more about the internet, its management and how to use it than their parents, and in every class, 100 per cent. of hands went up. One hundred per cent. of those children knew more about this medium than their parents. I asked how many of them had had access when using the internet to material that had upset, disturbed or worried them, and 100 per cent. of hands went up.

I asked the schools to send me back comments from parents and children about the leaflets, and the number of parents who found it helpful was remarkable. The desire of parents to protect their children is one of the strongest motivating forces. The problem arises when parents do not know how to protect their child without appearing foolish. Most do not discuss this issue, because they do not know the language, which safety methods to promote or how to give advice and support.

We could address this issue by having parental controls implemented in computers once they are sold. I see no reason why PC World, Currys and so on cannot sell a range of computers with appropriate parental controls already embedded. If the various ISPs could agree on a common set of programmes to provide parental measures, that would be helpful.

I welcome the clause. It puts down a marker that the internet will not provide a hiding place for those who take malicious pleasure in supporting and encouraging people in crisis, particularly those who, with the right help and support, could live long and fruitful lives. If such people choose help and support rather than suicide, their lives can be fulfilled.

At a conference that we attended together, Dr. Robert Colgate, a psychiatrist from my constituency said, “Suicide is a rubbish choice—you never know the end of the story if you choose suicide.” There are other ways in which we can prevent people from taking their own lives, but this is a particularly helpful way.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Obviously, when the Suicide Act 1961 was brought on to the statute book, the internet was not developed to the extent that it is today. I warmly welcome  the amendments tabled by the Government, following the Byron report; they are necessary now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has illustrated.

Apart from the clarification in the Bill, the law needs no further clarification; it is quite clear, despite what has been argued in the press and in various articles. It has a harsh face, of course, because part of the purpose of the law is to deter people from helping others to kill themselves, whether for compassionate reasons or self-interested motives—a will around the corner, perhaps—and it is there to provide protection especially for vulnerable people: the elderly, the seriously handicapped and even the mentally ill, because they should be protected, too, as my hon. Friend has just explained.

Yesterday, I typed “suicide” into Google and within an amazing 0.7 seconds, it came up with 68,200,000 entries. Most of them are reports of people having committed suicide around the world and, of course, searches can be limited on any search engine. So I typed “How to commit suicide”, which reduced the number of entries, but only to 3,150,000 in 0.9 seconds. Plenty of information is out there, and two Committee members have already demonstrated how evil some of that information is.

The social networking sites are probably the most dangerous of all, as my hon. Friend has also illustrated. I have come across postings where a desperate user, for example, who wants to know how to hang themselves gets into a chat room where somebody somewhere in the ether comes in and says, “Okay, I can tell you the websites where nooses are described that will not unravel when the weight of your body takes hold of the rope and I can tell you which knots to use as well.” So not only is this information written on the internet, it is also personal, face-to-face information if you know how to browse the internet, as most teenagers do.

I had an article on e-safety published in the November/December 2008 edition of the magazine, “Public Sector Executive”. Most parents and teachers are pretty naive and believe that, by buying commercial filters or building firewalls into the system, they can prevent their young people from accessing the kind of undesirable websites that we are talking about. Well, I have got news for those people: yes, commercial filters and firewalls are a barrier, but nearly all teenagers know how to Google their way round them. In my article, I explain how easy it is and how to do it within seconds. If people think that young people are being prevented from accessing such websites, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Packages are now available that can remotely monitor the use of computers in a town library, for example, or in a school, whether primary or secondary, and see what the children are doing. Of course, that takes away some of the users’ privacy, but children in school are supposed to be using the computers for education purposes. My article shows that they are not always using them for such purposes and that they are accessing mainly pornography and, just occasionally, suicide sites and other undesirable sites, too. Packages can be bought that monitor the use of all the computers in the school by all the children, whether they are using them in the school or accessing them from home by a link at night.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

In The Daily Telegraph of 26 February 2008, there was an interesting article about how predators tell children how to kill themselves. It alleged that people have unearthed a network of suicide gurus who actively go about encouraging children to commit suicide and telling them how to do it. Unfortunately, two of the suicide guru sites are active in chat rooms, so there is no doubt that we have to take some action on the internet.

I am sorry that some Members are seeking to use the Bill to bring in assisted suicide. Three attempts to do that have already been made in the House of Lords, by Lord Joffe. Each attempt has failed, including the last one in 2006, which was defeated by 148 to 100 votes. The proper way to have a debate on assisted suicide, or to attempt to bring in assisted suicide, in this country, is not by parasite amendments on a Bill such as this one, which has clear intentions, but to bring in a separate Bill. I know that at least one Liberal Democrat Member who believes in assisted suicide has come out with a private Member’s Bill, but has chosen an entirely different topic. That Member could have used his Bill to test the temperature of the House on the point. Debates such as this split political parties, as we have seen this afternoon. It is a moral issue and I hope that it will be given a free vote, like abortion.

I shall address amendments 9, 10 and 12 to 16, which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough tabled. They appear to be designed to refine the wording of the Bill so that it does not criminalise acts which, although arguably capable of encouraging or assisting suicide, are not intended to do that. For example, a mother might respond in a moment of anger to a difficult teenager who has threatened to kill themselves. She believes that they are merely posturing and tells them to get on with it.

Although I accept that the Conservative amendments are well intentioned, they are unnecessary. I would prefer that the clauses in the Bill be relatively uncluttered, as they stand, without making them more complex. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that it is unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service—as a lawyer, he will know—would prosecute in circumstances such as those I have described. One could probably describe another 100 similar circumstances. The Crown Prosecution Service would simply not take a mother to court in such circumstances.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

The CPS would not do so because the mother would not come within subsection (2)(1)(b):

“D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

Both provisions have to be read together and clearly the mother would not have had the necessary intention. Although I am interested in hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I am quite happy to be criticised about all sorts of things, the point that he has just made is not a terribly good one.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Let me make another point. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments would mean that to secure a conviction, it would presumably be necessary to show that the publicity given had encouraged, or assisted, a particular suicide, which is an almost impossible task to achieve.

However, I have more difficulties with the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Cardiff, Central. If accepted, they would not only seriously weaken the Suicide Act 1961, but they would bring in assisted suicide in this country for the very first time, as I have explained, and on the back of a Bill that is not intended for that purpose.

All euthanasia campaigners are now proposing that the law should draw a distinction between malicious encouragement, and actual assistance, of suicide. I believe that is a silly position to take. Moreover, the amendments that the hon. Member for Cambridge has tabled would not be limited to assisting particular classes of people such as those who are terminally ill, whom he has mentioned this afternoon, but would refer to all people, including young, mentally ill people. If accepted, the Liberal Democrat amendments would take the House much further than any of the three Lord Joffe Bills have suggested that we go.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said at the start of my remarks. The amendments were put forward purely on a probing basis. There is no intention at all to put them to any sort of vote. It might shorten the debate if he accepted the point and just talked about the substance of the issue, rather than the drafting of particular amendments.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

I heard the hon. Gentleman loud and clear, but I have been listening to the whispers in the House for the past two or three months. When we consider this omnibus Bill on Report—the hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—there will be people in the House who will try to hijack it for a widespread debate on assisted suicide. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that these proposals are just the trailer for more amendments later.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

I also said that I regret that that will probably be the case. I would have preferred a private Member’s Bill to have been brought forward so that we could have a detailed discussion about the entire issue in the way the hon. Gentleman described. I am afraid it is a consequence of what the Government have chosen to do in putting forward a reform of the entire subject, rather than a reform of the particular and important issue of suicide websites.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

The amendments may be probing but they are also dangerous, and I hope that the Committee will reject them outright. The amendments argue that encouraging someone to commit suicide is reprehensible, but that assisting them to do so once they have made up their mind is not. That is like saying it is wrong to encourage a person to shoot themselves with a gun, yet giving them a loaded gun once they have made up their mind to accomplish the act of suicide. That is what the amendments mean, and they are based on the profoundly false assumption that if someone decides to commit suicide, their decision is rational and healthy and one that society should uphold. Most of us know that the majority of people who commit suicide, or attempt to commit suicide, are not acting rationally at that specific moment in time, and that they are disturbed or seriously depressed in the extreme. I cannot believe that society as a whole would want to introduce a Bill that would enable severely mentally depressed people to commit suicide, yet that is what the amendments suggest. I  know that the hon. Member for Cambridge says—I accept what he says with a great deal of respect—that they are probing amendments. None the less, my fear is that the probing amendments will be picked up on Report by people who are much more vociferous about bringing in assisted suicide. Let us not fool ourselves, there are tremendous pressures in the House at the moment to get assisted suicide in as the thin end of a wedge. Lord Carlile recently said in the House of Lords that it is not just a slippery slope, but a well polished one. I hope that the Committee will accept the clauses and reject both sets of amendments.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

May I begin by saying that we have had a superb debate in respect of these matters given the strong feelings on the issue? I have enjoyed listening to the contributions of all hon. Members, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me for singling out my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for her contribution. She brought her constituency experience to bear on the matter. I know that other hon. Members have also done that, but her particular experience in her constituency has clearly led her to investigate and take action across a whole range of matters. She brought her gained knowledge and insight into the remarks that she made this afternoon in a very impressive way. Moreover, by talking about such matters following the cluster of suicides in her constituency, she has influenced the Government in bringing forward some of our amendments. I want to put it on the record that we might not have been ready to move as swiftly as we have on this matter had it not been for her contributions and suggestions.

Other hon. Members across the Committee and across the House have an interest in certain aspects of this issue from one perspective or another. All hon. Members bring their constituency experience to bear. That is one of the great strengths of our democracy and our first-past-the-post election system. Our constituency-based system enables hon. Members to represent what happens in their constituencies in a way that is not allowed by any other system. That has been demonstrated in this afternoon’s debate.

It might be helpful if I go through some of the clause stand part points before dealing with the amendments so that it is clear what we are trying to do. In discussing what they have admitted are probing amendments, hon. Members have asked what our intention is, whether we are narrowing the law or keeping it as it is and whether we are just modernising the language.

I informed the House in September of our intention to simplify and update the statutory language of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. These clauses fulfil that intention. We reviewed the law in response to growing pubic concern about the misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods. We have heard from hon. Members on all sides of the Committee how far material on the internet goes. The severity of the information and material would surprise some Members of the House who are not as adept as their children and grandchildren in using this new medium. It can only assist the debate for us to hear how bad the material is.

I will say a little about the current law and explain why the changes will improve the situation. Section 2(1)  of the 1961 Act makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide or attempted suicide of another person. It is an unusual offence because it criminalises aiding and abetting something that is not of itself an offence. The offence of suicide was abolished by section 1 of the 1961 Act.

Section 2 of the 1961 Act is supplemented by the provisions of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which makes it a criminal offence to attempt to commit a crime. The 1981 Act does not usually apply to secondary parties to an offence on the basis of aiding and abetting, but it does apply to section 2 of the 1961 Act because a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a suicide is guilty as the principal offender, not as a secondary party. That means that as well as it being an offence under section 2 of the 1961 Act to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide or attempted suicide of another, it is also a separate offence under the 1981 Act to attempt to do so.

For an offence under section 2 of the 1961 Act to be committed, there must be an intention to aid an actual or attempted suicide and it must then take place. For an offence under the 1981 Act to be committed, the defendant must carry out an act that is more than merely preparatory to aiding or abetting a suicide or suicide attempt with the same intention. No actual suicide or suicide attempt need occur as a result. It is not a requirement that actual assistance is given to any person for there to be an attempt to assist suicide under the 1981 Act.

A number of questions have been raised about whether the clauses extend the current law. Hon. Members must bear it in mind that we are replacing two offences: we are replacing section 2 of the 1961 Act and removing the application of section 1 of the 1981 Act from that offence. It might assist Members’ understanding when I say that we are not widening the scope of the law through the changes in the Bill.

Hon. Members have seen for themselves the statements on suicide websites. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made that very clear, by citing examples of the material that can be found, so I shall not cite any others, although, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, there are many out there. In our view, such statements that demonstrate a clear intent to encourage or assist suicide are covered by the current law. In the absence of an actual suicide or suicide attempt, the relevant charge would be an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. When there is a link to an actual suicide or attempted suicide, the relevant charge will be the substantive offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961.

The Law Commission, which has examined this area of law, shares our view that, together, the two offences are capable of catching all behaviour that ought to be unlawful, including the encouragement of suicide through the medium of the internet. We must remember that, although the internet allows instantaneous access to a much wider range of material than the local library ever did, there is no doubt that it is a medium of communication—a place where information is; it is nothing other than that. However, the fact remains that, among the public, particularly those who have lobbied for stronger action on suicide websites——we all understand why they do——there is doubt about whether the current law is an adequate tool for dealing with such online  activity. That is largely because the law is unnecessarily complicated, and the Law Commission shares that view. The law is difficult to understand and explain, and that is why we are changing and updating the language.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am sure that the Minister is absolutely right. Although there is, theoretically, a criminal offence at the moment, the fact that there have been at least 46 known internet-assisted suicides and no successful prosecutions whatever, according to Papyrus, indicates that something must happen to make it easier for the CPS and the courts to convict.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

I have spoken to Papyrus myself, as have many Committee members, and I know and understand its figures. I do not wish to comment on whether there was always a causal link in the cases that it identified, but elements would certainly suggest a link between the internet and what happened in some individual cases. Members have referred to Gary Howes. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to the case, which, to be fair, was a first instance decision in the Crown court, whereby the defendant was charged with attempting to commit the section 2 offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. I do not wish to comment on what the judge might have said in that case, but I believe that some interpretations of the issues arising from the case were not correct, which serves to emphasise the fact that it would be helpful to clarify what the law does allow. Its complexity seems to be largely attributable to the unusualness of having an offence of aiding or abetting something that is not itself a criminal offence, along with an attempt offence that leaves an even longer chain of liability, disappearing off into conceptual difficulties as we all try to contemplate what on earth it means.

In addition, the language of the terms aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, which are consistent with the general secondary participation provisions, dates back to the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. One recalls with fondness—certainly, I do—the Serious Crime Act 2007, and we have been trying to update the language. Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring are equivalent to encouraging or assisting in more updated and modern language—modern being a word that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough does not like me to use. However, we believe that, cast in that light, the measure is more understandable. It is being brought into line with other changes that are being made—for example, to the inchoate offence—to update the language, and we believe that that is useful.

At first glance, the clause may appear more complicated than section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, but the clause simplifies the current law in several respects. First, it replaces the two offences of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring suicide, and of attempting to do so, with a single offence. The current need for reliance on the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 will be eliminated. All the law will be in one place, and that has to be helpful. Secondly, it replaces the old-fashioned language with the more up-to-date, understandable terms of encouraging and assisting, which are easier for all concerned to make sense of. Thirdly, it reflects current case law on a section 2 offence and attempting to commit a section 2 offence. It is important to emphasise that the clause does not change the scope of the current law when section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 is read in combination with section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Any activity that is currently illegal will remain so.

I shall briefly go through the clause in more detail and then deal with the amendments. Subsection (2) sets out the single offence that replaces the offences of aiding, abetting counselling or procuring and of attempting to do so. The offence will apply where a person does an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting another person to commit or attempt to commit suicide and intends his act to so encourage or assist. The person committing the offence need not know the other person or even be able to identify them. In the context of websites promoting suicide, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has discerned and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East also said, this is an important point. It is highly unlikely that the author of such a site will know the identity of those who access it. But if he intends that one or more of his readers will commit or attempt to commit suicide, then he is guilty of an offence. In such circumstances, face-to-face meetings are not necessary: he is guilty of an offence.

Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act currently provides that if, on the trial of an indictment for murder or manslaughter, it is proved that the accused aided, abetted, counselled or procured the suicide of the person in question, the jury may find him guilty of the offence. Clause 46(3) simply amends subsection 2(2) of the Act so that the language is consistent with the new language of section 2(1).

Subsection (4) would insert proposed new sections 2A and 2B into the 1961 Act. Proposed new section 2A elaborates on what constitutes an act capable of encouraging or assisting suicide. It provides that a person who arranges for someone else to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person will also be liable for the offence if the other person does that act. So if A arranges for B to supply a gun to C with the intention that C will use the gun to commit suicide, A is equally liable. Proposed new section 2A(2) provides that an act can be capable of encouraging or assisting suicide even if the circumstances are such that it was impossible for the act actually to encourage or assist. That would cover, for example, the case where pills provided with the intention that they will assist a person to commit suicide are thought to be lethal but are in fact harmless or where lethal pills sent to a person with the intention that the person would use them to commit or attempt to commit suicide get lost in the post. Proposed new section 2A(3) clarifies that references to doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting another to commit or attempt suicide include a reference to doing so by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person to commit or attempt suicide.

Proposed new section 2B provides that an act includes a course of conduct, such as a case where a person supplies another person with poison such as arsenic over a period of time, intending that the other person will use the poison to kill himself.

Clause 46 does not create internet-specific offences. Some Committee members have suggested that that might be a way forward, but it would not be necessary or sensible to do so. The internet is simply a means of communication—a way of getting swift access to a much wider range of information that might otherwise not have been available before its invention—and the law already applies to that means of communication as it does to any other. I hope that reframing the law in new, modern language will help to reassure people that  the law is capable of reflecting the new ways of communicating and accessing information that have developed since the 1961 Act was passed.

I am conscious that the amendments are probing amendments and I hope that what I have already said deals with some of the points arising from them. Amendments 178 to 186, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, would remove the words “assisting” and “assist” from the relevant clauses, with the result that only encouragement of suicide would remain as the criminal offence. He said that they are probing amendments, but I do not know whether he took into account the current law under section 1 of the 1981 Act and how it applies. I hope that I have answered the points that led him to table them.

The current law does not differentiate between encouraging and assisting suicide. Aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring cover encouragement and assistance. Currently, the law treats those things equally, although that may not be readily apparent from the language in statute. None the less, it is a fact. The new formulation will cover the same behaviour as the old. The provisions will simplify and update the law, but will not alter its scope, and we do not believe that it ought to be altered in the way that the amendments suggest.

Basically, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments would do three things. Some would remove the reference to capability, which of course does not appear in section 2 of the Suicide Act, because, as I have tried to explain, the new offences attempt to cover both section 2 and the impact of section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 relating to suicide offences. We are not seeking to extend the scope of legislation, but to put those two offences together, so that it is clearer, and therefore to disapply the workings of the Criminal Attempts Act from the remaining offence. We believe having one offence in the same place will be less confusing than having two offences.

Under existing law, an act capable of encouraging or assisting suicide, and intended to do so, is an offence, under section 1 of the 1981 Act, not the 1961 Act. We are not changing the scope. I hope that that gives him some reassurance that we are not making massive and unjustifiable changes to the law. Unless paragraph 53 of schedule 19 is also removed, his amendments would narrow legislation, because some conduct caught by the 1981 Act would not be criminal, and his amendments would not actually remove those. I hope that he would agree, therefore, that the words “capable of” are indeed necessary and that he will not press his amendments.

Amendments 422 and 424 would remove the provision stating that a person who commits an offence of encouraging or assisting suicide need not know, or even be able to identify, the person encouraged or assisted by his act. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have thought, when he tabled his amendments, that that provision widens the law—perhaps that is why he was trying to remove it—but that is not the case. Proposed new subsection (1A) does not introduce anything novel, but simply reflects the position under existing law. For example, if the publisher of a suicide website intends that a person accessing the site commit, or attempt to commit, suicide, he will be guilty of an offence, even  though it is highly unlikely that he will know the identity of those accessing his website. That is the position under the law, although there is confusion about it, and it will remain the position under the new law. Given that proposed new subsection (1A) simply reflects the legal position, I hope that he will accept that it is appropriate for it to remain in the clause and therefore not feel that his amendments are necessary.

Amendments 423 and 425 would remove the provisions stating that an act can be capable of encouraging or assisting suicide even if the circumstances are such that it was impossible for the act actually to encourage or assist. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have thought that the new provisions widen current law, but that is not the case, given the points that I have made already about the 1981 Act. On that basis, I hope that he accepts that the new formulations will not widen the law, but clarify it, and that he accepts therefore that his amendments are not necessary.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

The Minister opened by saying that this has been a superb debate, which I think was a fair description. My complaint is that this superb debate is taking place in the wrong place. It should have taken place on the Floor of the House during the course of a Suicide Act amendment Bill Second Reading debate. We have been discussing this clause and these amendments for a little over an hour, subject to the vote downstairs. The way in which the contributors to the debate—be it the hon. Member for Cambridge, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, the hon. Member for Bridgend or my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire—have approached it shows that much needs to be said and a great deal of explanation needs to come from the Government. To be required to compress the debate into a debate within Committee is not, although it has been a good experience to take part in, the most sensible way to develop the law. I seem to make that point rather a lot. Although I accept—I have said this before, too—that a bad point is never improved by repetition, sometimes a good point needs to be hammered home. If I can get it into the heads of the Government business managers and those who construct these Bills that this is simply a silly way to conduct the creation of legislation, I will, I hope, have achieved something. I have failed over the past 10 years; perhaps in the last year of this Parliament I will make some progress.

I do not have any concerns, which the Minister may have implied, about using modern language. I have no concern about people wanting to update the way in which offences are defined. So long as it is in English, in sentences and clauses, and the thing makes sense, I do not care. What is important is that one does not use the word “modern or “modernisation” to camouflage intellectual vacuity or a total lack of direction.

I am concerned that, for example, proposed new section 2A(2), which will be inserted into the Suicide Act 1961 and which is covered by my amendment 423, is largely incomprehensible. I fully understand what the Minister says about the intention of it. We all know or at least some of us know about the concept of the attempt to do the impossible, but I can see it now—I can see David Thomas reading out subsection (2), to the chuckles of my colleagues at the Judicial Studies Board, roaring his head off and saying, “I wonder who drafted this lot.” Then some judge will break his pencil and say, “Well, I suppose we’ll just have to interpret it as  best we can.” I have now heard the Minister say what she intends it to mean, and the mad hatter and his tea party can move on to the next course.

I shall finish on this point. I have never known my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire to be concerned about my well-being or feelings before, but I was delighted—

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

He thinks of nothing else.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

That is also worrying. I was delighted that my hon. Friend missed most of my speech, because had he heard all of it, he might have been even ruder about it, but what he missed—I think that he accepts this—is that the amendments, as a number of contributors have recognised, were designed to create an opportunity for a debate. I am not sure whether he was in the Committee Room at the time, but as I think I also said, the discussion in relation to amending the Suicide Act, certainly in this Committee under my leadership and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, in so far as that is the correct way to describe it—“command” is too grand a word for what we are about—is a free vote issue. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire would sleep more easily both in Committee and after Committee, having heard that.

I want the Government to take seriously the point that I make about the process in which we are engaged. I have not actually looked at internet suicide sites. I spent the period between the adjournment at 1 o’clock and 4 o’clock trying to become engaged in internet banking. I crawled out of my cave and found it all far too difficult, so I am not sure that I shall be going too far in looking up internet suicide sites, but I fully appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Bridgend has made. Indeed, when I visited HM prison Parc in her constituency last year, as she may remember, it was clear that the atmosphere in and around Bridgend had been completely dominated by the huge numbers of young people who had killed themselves, and I fully appreciate the motive with which she comes into the debate. I just wish that she had an option to say more of what she wanted to say on Second Reading—she did take part in Second Reading of the Bill and mentioned the subject. I hope that she will agree that this particular area of the law requires its own Bill, and we do ourselves and our constituents a disservice by crushing the debate into such a limited forum. That is enough from me on the subject, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.