Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

2nd reading
Friday 28th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, may I also congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for again providing the opportunity to debate this important and sensitive issue and for his strenuous and tenacious efforts to improve the Bill to meet the points made in previous debates? In fact, the Bill is now wider than it was before in that it extends to all suicides, instead of just those related to gambling. This is an extremely important area and the Government very much share the thoughts expressed this morning on the importance of gathering quality information on the circumstances that can lead to a suicide.

There were a number of extremely moving contributions this morning. I make particular mention of the need for better data on assisted suicides, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. I also mention her points about gambling addiction, and those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. However, despite these efforts, the Government are not yet in a position to support the Bill, essentially for three reasons which I will briefly set out. The central question is the one raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which is whether the coronal system is the right way forward for this exercise. The Government do not support the Bill for three reasons.

First, the Bill is not an appropriate extension of the coroner’s jurisdiction. The coroner is there to decide when, where and how somebody died: whether it is accidental death, suicide, natural causes, unlawful killing, open verdict or whatever. To go further and ask why somebody died is to move from the objective to the difficult, subjective, extremely complex, often speculative and very often deeply mysterious question of why somebody chose to take their own life. That would be a major and obligatory extension of the scope of the investigation. It is not a complete answer to say that it would be separate from the verdict and after the verdict, because they still have to do the investigation.

We cannot rely on the information available to different coroners’ courts or different inquests being complete; we cannot rely on it being consistent; and it is likely to be fraught with emotion and subjective feelings. To investigate these things may well cause extra distress to the families involved and to the privacy of the family, and may in that sense be counterproductive. It would certainly require considerable extra resources and extra time for a system that is already resource-stretched. It is difficult enough, especially post pandemic, for the coronal system to do its existing job, let alone have this extremely extensive and potentially very difficult new burden imposed on it. In the Government’s view there are significant downsides to the Bill, however laudable the objective. We entirely agree that the objective is laudable, and the right reverend Prelate is to be congratulated on putting the Bill forward, but the question is whether it is the right way forward. The main argument being relied on, it seems to us, is that it is essential to have better data about suicides.

The second reason for the Government’s position is that our view is that this, as a system, is most unlikely to be able to produce statistical information that is significantly complete, comprehensive or consistent across jurisdictions to be useful for the purposes of setting policy or for the purposes of the ONS to publish reliable, objective information where we are necessarily dealing with subjective, sometimes speculative and sometimes completely unknown reasons as to why somebody killed themself. However laudable it is, we do not accept that the coronal system is the best way forward for collecting more data on the reasons for suicide.

The third reason, which has been mentioned indirectly several times this morning, is that we already have, in effect, a system for publicising and drawing attention to difficult cases, through the establishment of the system for prevention of future death reports: it is already there, essentially. Particular mention has been made of the PFD report into the sad death of Molly Russell, who died from an act of self-harm due to the negative effect of online content. Mention has also been made of the tragic death of Jack Ritchie, a young man who took his life following problems with gambling. In those cases, through the existing system, the coroner could draw attention to the circumstances. We already have a working system, so is it really justified to impose the further obligation, in all cases, to go in sufficient detail into the question of why? The Government’s position is that the prevention of future death report system is working well, that it produces the information, and that it would be disproportionate and potentially counterproductive to take the Bill further.

More generally, the Government are committed to expanding and transforming mental health services in England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, we have already had a call for evidence on the longer-term priorities for mental health, well-being and suicide prevention. That call for evidence closed on 7 July. I was asked when we are planning to publish our plan, and she raised two other points in reference to the comments of Minister Keegan and what progress we have made in real-time suicide monitoring in various contexts. I am not able to give detailed information this morning, but I will write as soon as I can, because this is an important question that the Government take extremely seriously.

For those three principal reasons—the extreme difficulty of investigating the why in every case under the compulsory requirements in the Bill; the difficulty, even if we did investigate it, of knowing whether the information is reliable for statistical purposes; and the existing prevention of future death reports, which fill that gap—the Government oppose the Bill. Finally, I support the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to the effect that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to give directions to independent judicial officers such as coroners. That point, in my respectful submission, is entirely right and is a further but subsidiary reason for opposing the Bill.