Free Speech and Assisted Suicide: Coroners and Justice Bill Second Reading Debate. Continued prayer, action and pressure needed.
Headlines
Removal of Free Speech Clause “Not Constitutionally Proper” and “Plain Shoddy”
The Coroners and Justice Bill saw its Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords on Monday, 18th May 2009. At Second Reading no votes are taken. Forty-four members contributed to the debate. The Government is attempting to use the Coroners and Justice Bill to remove the free speech provision from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (“CJIA 2008”). If the provision is removed, doubt would be cast upon the legality of discussing or criticising homosexual practice.
Lord Bach, (Labour) Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, introducing the Bill on behalf of the Government, contended that the Government had made it clear at the time the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was passed that they would return to the issue of free speech. This is because they had not been content with the insertion of the free speech clause, but had allowed it to be included so that the Act as a whole could be passed. Lord Bach argued that the offence of “inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” has a very high threshold and that the free speech provision was unnecessary and could cause confusion on the scope of the offence. Most Peers, however, argued in favour of retaining the free speech provision.
Lord Kingsland (Conservative), Shadow Chancellor, considered that it was “not constitutionally proper” to raise the issue of free speech again now that the CJIB 2008 has been passed, as Peers “are entitled to conclude that the Government had reached the decision that the amendment…was acceptable”. Lord Henley (Conservative), Shadow Minister for Justice, later added that in his opinion “it is just plain shoddy” because the Government had “signed up to it.”
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham expressed his concern with the potential application of the law, which could “restrict legitimate discussion and expression of opinion about sexual ethics and behaviour” as existing law has sometimes been used to “warrant over-zealous police investigation against people with conservative views on homosexuality.”
Lord Waddington (Conservative) argued powerfully in favour of his free speech provision, stating that it was “simply untrue” that the Government had threatened to come back to it. The Government’s own notes showed that it “does not raise the threshold for the offence or make prosecutions more difficult.” Lord Waddington said that he was not trying to weaken the protection of the offence, but that he did want the scope of the criminal offence made plain to avoid the “scandals” of previous cases. He argued that the CPS Guidance on Homophobic and Transphobic Crime 2007 did not inspire confidence, but rather made a case for the necessity of the free speech provision.
Lord Lester (Liberal Democrat), expressing the minority view in the debate, argued against the free speech provision (despite having previously supported a free speech clause in relation to the religious hatred offence). Lord Hylton (Cross Bench) feared that the Government “may have caved in to the pressure from the fashionable homosexual lobby” and questioned what the slightest evidence might be that the important defence “has done the slightest harm?”
Lord Bach concluded on behalf of the Government that he did not think that there is any “constitutional outrage” in revisiting the free speech provision and that he was entitled to point to the fact that the House of Commons has voted twice in favour of removing the free speech provision.
Legalising Assisted Suicide: The Vulnerable Put at Risk
The Coroners and Justice Bill includes provisions that would make it illegal to encourage suicide on a website. However, some members of the House of Commons and some Peers in the House of Lords wish to legalise assistance with suicide. Lord Bach’s introduction to the Bill on behalf of the Government offered some cautious advice that the “issue of doctor-assisted dying is too important and too profound for it to be slipped into a passing Government Bill. It warrants a Bill of its own and, in the Government’s view, a Private Member’s Bill at that.” The Government do not want to deal with the issue of assisted suicide in this Bill.
A number of Peers, however, spoke in favour of legalising doctor-assisted suicide. Baroness Jay of Paddington (Labour) said that she remained “strongly in favour of a change to the law that would enable mentally-competent, but terminally-ill adults to commit assisted suicide.” However, “this is not the Bill in which to attempt a wide-scale reform of that law.” Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour) argued that such a change to the law was needed to “identify proper safeguards” and due to “uncertainty” citing the case of Ms. Diane Purdy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Cross Bench) who is against any change in the law corrected Lord Falconer of Thoroton by stating that “Dignitas is not a clinic… it is, quite simply, a suicide service, probably for commercial gain.” On safeguards, she posed the questions “How do you actually provide immunity for those travelling abroad?” and “How do you detect coercion—subtle coercion—whether internal or external?”
Lord Alton (Cross Bench) reminded the Peers that “voluntary euthanasia” in Holland led to “involuntary euthanasia”. “Nearly 1,000 deaths a year are involuntary out of a total of 4,000. So we need to be clear where we are proceeding if we give the green light to what is being suggested. It is, of course, the reason why all of the Royal Colleges and the British Medical Association take the view, shared by the Government, that the law should not be changed.”
Baroness Emerton (Cross Bench) stated that most people would be “put at risk by an amendment to give licence for assisted suicide to a small minority of highly resolute people.” She added that the
...law is there primarily to protect vulnerable people from abuse.... In any case, legalising assistance with suicide is tantamount to encouraging it. If Parliament were to say that encouraging suicide should be against the law but assisting it in certain cases should be legal, we would in effect be discouraging it for most people but encouraging it for others. What sort of message would that send from this House to seriously ill and other vulnerable people? I hope that your Lordships’ House therefore will support the Government’s amendments and resist any attempts to amend them further to allow assistance with suicide.
Lord Bach summed up on behalf of the Government saying that “We heard many passionate speeches on assisted suicide, either for a change in the law or for maintaining the law as it is.” He confirmed there would be a free vote on the Government side on an amendment of the kind proposed by Baroness Jay, but repeated that the Government did “not think this Bill is the appropriate vehicle in which to pursue a change in the law.”
|
Please continue to write to Peers on these important issues. Our updated Information and Action Pack provides the resources you need to do this quickly and effectively. Please click on the icon on the right and take action as soon as you can. The next important dates for the Bill’s Committee Stage are 9th and 10th June, when amendments to specific clauses, such as clause 61, can be tabled and voted upon. |
|
Please use the list of Peers’ votes at the link below to find out which Peers voted for the free speech clause in May 2008. Please write to as many as you can, asking them to attend Parliament to vote for any amendment that would remove clause 61. If you have any personal contact with a Peer, please seek to persuade them of the necessity of voting for the free speech clause. To see our list of Peers’ votes, please click here.
To access the Second Reading debate in full, please click here.