Domestic Abuse Victims in Family Law Courts

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate those who secured this debate and everybody who has spent so long working on this issue—in particular, the all-party group on domestic violence and Women’s Aid on raising the issue of how domestic violence cases are dealt with in the family courts. The statistics and examples of domestic abuse, some of which have been given this afternoon, are so continually shocking that we have a duty to come back to this debate over and again.

I do not intend to repeat anything anybody has already said. I want to address two issues: first, what has been happening in the criminal courts to make the position better, and to raise the question of why some of that has not been done in the family courts; and secondly, to go to the question of abuse of process, where individuals are clearly using the civil courts for a purpose they were not intended for.

The criminal courts are not perfect. There are all sorts of problems still with our criminal courts in dealing with domestic abuse, but anybody who has worked on this—people across the House have done so—will recognise that real strides have been made that make a real difference in relation to the criminal approach over the past 10 to 15 years. I want to outline why I think that has happened, because this is a time to reflect on the processes in the family courts and to see whether some of that can be replicated.

The first thing that happened was that we began to count the cases. Back in 2002-03, nobody knew how many domestic abuse cases were going into the criminal court, so we could not begin to have a policy or strategy. We started counting the cases, and if the number of cases where litigants in person before family courts is not being counted now, that needs to start, and we need to understand how many of them may be victims of domestic abuse. So counting is the starting point.

We then need a policy to understand, so that everybody who plays a part in the process has a policy that helps them make the right decisions in the area they are responsible for. That happened in the criminal process about 10 or 12 years ago—those policies began to be rolled out, and they have been improved over the years. A policy on its own does not do the job, so we need a strategy, too, that makes it clear what we are trying to achieve and is proactive and forces things to change. We also need leadership: people who are prepared to go out there and say, “We’re going to change what’s going to happen.” All that has helped in the criminal sphere, with lots of different people leading in different ways. When we put it all together, it is clear the position has undoubtedly changed, so that it is now unrecognisable.

I will go through some of the features. Independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual advisers are extremely good and are relied on by victims to help them through that part of the process. Specialist courts for domestic violence made a real difference, where everybody in the courtroom was trained and understood the issues; there were separate courts and lists, and the environment made it easier to deal with domestic violence cases. There was better co-ordination and support, with groups like Women’s Aid and many others out there to provide the support victims need for the journey they were going to go through in the criminal courts. And then there were practical measures that took the strain off the victim.

It is particularly important for a 999 tape, recording the person who phones the police to report what is happening, always to be secured, and for a police officer to arrive at the scene wearing a body cam. Those two bits of evidence will secure a conviction in almost every case of domestic abuse. It is amazing that they are still not the norm even in the criminal sphere. With the 999 tape and the body cam, it will almost certainly be possible to prove a case without putting a strain on the victim by requiring him or her to make that case in court.

Then there are special measures. When I went along to the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and heard some of the evidence about family courts, I was struck by the fact that what I was hearing simply would not be tolerated in the criminal courts any more. Special measures are a norm in the criminal courts, and it would be thought to be the duty of the prosecution, the defence and the court to ensure that they are in place.

Some of the changes that have taken place have undoubtedly improved the situation in the criminal courts, although I am not pretending that it is perfect, and I am not suggesting that there is not much more to be done. I think that those improvements came about because a number of individuals decided to listen to what people were saying to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) mentioned the terrible case of Jane Clough. Her parents, Penny and John, came to see me, and I just sat down for the afternoon and let them tell me what had happened to them during their journey through our courts. It reflected on the organisation that I was running and it reflected on the criminal justice system, of which I am very proud, but I listened, and other people listened. We need to listen, and that is why today’s debate is so important.

We also need to be non-defensive. In my experience of criminal justice, the moment our organisation or system is criticised, we circle the wagons and try to protect what we think is good, rather than accepting that it might not be so good. It is necessary to listen, to give a non-defensive, open response, and then to have an absolute determination to change things. Jane’s parents asked me to go with them on a journey to change some of the things that had gone wrong for them, and I am proud to call them friends and co-advocates on that continuing journey.

There are real lessons to be learnt, and when I say that I look, obviously, to the Government Front Bench. There are lessons to be learnt about what has happened in the world of criminal justice in the last 15 years and to ask searching questions about why some of that cannot be replicated in family and other courts—starting, as I have said, with listening, non-defensiveness and an absolute commitment to change.

The second point that I want to make concerns the abuse of process, an issue that I think is rising on the agenda. Perpetrators of domestic abuse use our courts—both criminal and civil, but it is on the civil courts that the torch has not been shone—to continue the perpetration of control and harassment of victims. I pay tribute to Claire Waxman, herself a victim of harassment. She and Voice4Victims have raised this issue on numerous occasions.

There are two types of abuse of process. First, there are the individuals who bring proceedings in which they have no legitimate interest: they are doing it simply to ensure that the person whom they have been stalking or harassing is forced to come to court to strike out their claim. Because these are people with no legitimate interest, the courts will strike out the claim when they get to grips with it, as a vexatious claim. However, the victim will have to go to court to argue that it is vexatious, and that is all that the perpetrator wants: for that person to come to court. That is what happened to Claire Waxman, and it has happened to other victims.

This problem could be solved by Christmas. Again, I am looking straight across at the Government Front Bench. It ought to be possible for someone working for the senior judiciary to devise a way to ensure that such cases are subject to a special strike-out procedure that does not require the victim to go to court and take the initiative, and some third party does it instead. I honestly think that a month or two of hard work, and some real courage and determination, could produce a system whereby a practice direction could be issued and the problem could be put to one side.

The second type of abuse of process is more difficult to deal with. In these cases, the perpetrator has an interest—a child, for instance—and it is therefore not possible to say that that individual simply should not be allowed to be in court at all. In those circumstances, it is a question of looking at special measures, support and different ways of arranging family and other courts to ensure that they are not used with ulterior motives, because there is growing evidence that is happening. These are difficult cases, but it must be possible to provide support for victims, special measures and, indeed, a more proactive role for judges. A big change in the criminal courts was that judges began to be much more proactive and to say, “This is my problem. I must deal with it. It is my duty to provide a better environment for victims on their journey through our courts.”

What today’s debate throws up is that these issues are not going to go away. They need to be solved, and I think they can be solved across the House, but that will require listening, non-defensiveness and commitment to bringing about real change. Real change has already happened in the criminal sphere; it can happen in the family courts as well, and it need not take 15 years if lessons from one jurisdiction are borrowed by the other.

Court Charges (Access to Justice)

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. I secured the debate because I am worried about access to justice for people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. I will touch on that later.

The court charges were introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They have had a dramatic impact on the number of cases going to court. I am particularly worried about tribunal numbers, which have plummeted, and the number of discrimination and unfair dismissal cases, which seems to be going down. I am concerned that the charges are in effect an attack on the most vulnerable in our society. I say the most vulnerable, because statistics show that sex discrimination cases brought by women have gone down by 80%. Similarly, if we compare the first few months of 2014 with the same period in 2013, the number of race discrimination cases has gone down by 60%.

Access to the court system is not, as the Government have put it, part of the welfare state. I prefer to agree with the Law Society, which said that the court system should be seen as

“part of the…rights and duties that give…resilience”

to the society that we live in. I do not doubt that our centuries-old court system needs some reform, but we need to think carefully before proposing those reforms. The Government would do well to remember their responsibility to enable every citizen to be treated equally before the law, whether they are a defendant, a victim or another party.

It is important to consider the effect that the criminal courts charge is having on poor defendants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned. Despite the lack of quantitative data at my disposal, a lot of anecdotal evidence has been brought to light, especially by organisations such as the Howard League, revealing that this charge is not only intolerable in its consequences but will in no way recover the money that the Government talk about.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

In the light of the failure to consult before the criminal charge scheme was introduced; the clear concerns of judges, magistrates and the whole legal profession; and the likelihood that this will add to the problem, rather than solve it, does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme should be reviewed this autumn, as the Howard League argues, rather than in three years?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has a lot of experience in this field. That is something I raised with the Justice Secretary when I asked him in the Chamber a few weeks ago why this absurd policy had been signed off in the first place, and he said that it was under review. We should not wait three years, while the reform has dramatic effects on the most vulnerable in our society. We should move the review forward; if the scheme is under review, that should be done immediately, and we should not procrastinate.

Let me highlight what I find most concerning about this charge and what has struck me. This charge will put pressure on people to plead guilty because they are worried about financial costs. If someone pleads guilty early on, they are less likely to incur costs than if they say and then maintain that they are innocent, and are found guilty later down the line. That will inevitably put pressure on people to plead guilty. I want to read out some of the figures, to hammer this home. The charge rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates court to £520 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. The charge at Crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. Think about the constituents who live on the estates of Hampstead and Kilburn, the constituency I am so proud to represent in this House. They would not be able to afford those fines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. If we look at the money we have managed to claw back, it shows why this policy should be scrapped. It should not take three years to review it, because we have the evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said.

I rarely agree with Conservative Members of the House, but I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said on Radio 4 that the charge

“does seem to be distorting the way in which people behave in court…defendants might plead guilty to save the cost of the charge when otherwise they would not have done”.

That is from a member of the Conservative party. I could not agree more with him.

In 21st-century Britain, we should be appalled by the miscarriage of justice, especially when defendants are foregoing their freedom due to financial constraints. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, in some magistrates courts about 80% of defendants are dependent on state support to meet basic living costs, which makes this issue even more pressing. The charge means that poorer defendants are likely to make a different decision from the one they would have ordinarily made. That means we risk their voice being at best constrained, and at worst shut out from our justice system.

[Keir Starmer]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this cuts across the principle we have had in our criminal justice system for many years of being willing to reduce a sentence for an early guilty plea, because we are setting our face against increasing the consequences for not pleading guilty?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Again, I draw on my hon. and learned Friend’s experience in the legal world. I absolutely agree with him, and I hope the Government will listen to his interventions today, because I do not think anyone could be better equipped to help the Government at this point than him.

What is even more frustrating is that we are unable to place a specific figure on the increase in the proportion of guilty pleas at first hearing at the magistrates court. Until recently, quarterly criminal court statistics routinely included that figure. While the Government may be reticent about taking on board demands for revision, they must strive to make those figures available so that the extent of the recent phenomenon can be made public. I urge the Minister to be transparent about the impact this reform is having.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned that 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of this policy. Let us listen to the experts and judge them by their actions. The Magistrates Association claimed in written evidence to the Justice Committee that

“the lack of judicial discretion means that the charge…is not in accordance with the principles of justice.”

My second concern is that the charge is producing fines that are disproportionate to the minor offences for which defendants are often charged. For generations, magistrates imposed financial penalties in accordance with how severe the crime was and the defendant’s ability to pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned. The mandatory charge can account for 50% or more of the total, placing enormous anxiety and stress on individuals who sometimes have been driven, in despair, to commit crimes. I am not saying we should not punish criminals, but the importance of judicial discretion cannot be underestimated.

I would like to give one example from Highbury Corner magistrates court, where a lot of Hampstead and Kilburn’s constituents are tried. The defendant in question had no savings, no income and a drug addiction. He was put in the docks of Highbury for stealing a couple of steaks and 70p lollipops. He was told he should plead guilty, because the charge would be £150, whereas if he was found guilty further down the line, it would rise to £1,000. Of course, he pled guilty. The reporters at the case wrote that he sat there with “sunken cheekbones”, his shirt falling off his back, and he knew that he would in no way be able to pay the court fees imposed on him. The charge was £150, with a £65 victim surcharge and further costs of £85, which came to £295 for a man who the judge said needed 12 months of rehabilitation and community service. There is no way he will be able to pay that back. Is this a system that works for people? Should we not be looking at these vulnerable people who cannot afford to pay the fees we are imposing on them? Is this the future we want for our criminal justice system? It is surely time the Government realised that this policy is not fit for purpose and needs to be reviewed.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, we have been told that the Government are listening, which is a good sign, but can we ensure the review is brought forward? May I have an answer to my original question to the Justice Secretary: how did this absurd policy get signed off in the first place? Secondly, in the medium term, will the Government disaggregate the statistics that are due in December, so that we can see exactly how little is being paid back and how much the policy is costing taxpayers in administrative costs?

A lot of Members in this House and in this Chamber today came into politics because they believed in the values of equality, fairness and social justice. If we carry on in this way, we will create a legal system in which people with money will have access to justice and those without will be shut out. That is not the kind of society we want to live in; we want to live in a society that has equal access to justice, and we need to be very careful, because we are in danger of hitting the most vulnerable people in our society with the legal reforms that are being proposed. I ask the Minister to respond to my questions, and I urge him, once again, to listen to all the Opposition Members who have made points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening; she gives me the opportunity to explain an important issue. The criminal courts charge is payable only after, first, the compensation has been paid; secondly, the victim surcharge has been paid; thirdly, the prosecution costs have been paid; and, fourthly, fines have been paid. A judge imposes those, and only when all four have been paid does the criminal courts charge come along; and, although set at a specific rate, it is nevertheless assessed by the court’s officers on the basis of ability to pay. That means that the other debts, income and all other such financial factors are taken into account; and then, based on what the officer feels is an acceptable way for the charge to be paid, the money is paid, after the other four impositions have been dealt with. I might add that if an individual has made all reasonable efforts to make the payment and they have not reoffended, then after two years whatever is left is scrapped.

[Keir Starmer]

Does the Minister agree that it is highly unusual for a number of magistrates to resign over an issue such as this? When they do so, what is the level of concern in the Department, ranked between one and 10?

[Mr Vara]

We have some 20,000 magistrates. At any given point, there are always some who are resigning. It is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis, but I will say that magistrates do hugely beneficial work. It is an important role in society and they give up valuable time of their own to do a good service. Of course, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual circumstances, but it is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis.

[Mr Vara]

It is not yet known how much has been recovered, because those statistics will be forthcoming in the December quarterly statistics. Just to explain, they were not in the September quarterly publication because, although initial data from the first three months of operation—the change having taken place in April—were included in the regular September quarterly statistics, it was not possible to provide separate figures on the charge in time for that publication which met the data quality standards required for published management information. Detailed figures will, however, be published on 17 December.

I note the comments made about the effects on the offender’s plea decision and the issue of access to justice. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair and effective criminal justice system that is accessible to all, and we are assured in the knowledge that the coalition Government carefully considered the compatibility of the criminal courts charge provisions with the European convention on human rights, on article 6 “access to the court” grounds. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights has an implicit right of access to the courts, and the charge does not interfere with that right in any way. In particular, it should be remembered that the charge is imposed at the end of proceedings. Defendants facing trial are not required to pay the criminal courts charge and the charge is not a condition of an offender being able to access the courts. A person will be subject to the charge only if convicted following a court hearing that will have taken into consideration all the available evidence. Therefore, those who are innocent and should be found not guilty by the courts will not be required to pay the charge.

We should also remember that our justice system already creates a number of incentives for those who enter early guilty pleas to ensure that the wheels of justice run more smoothly. For example, if defendants who are guilty enter a guilty plea as early as possible, the courts recognise the benefit to victims, witnesses and the criminal justice system as a whole by means of a reduction in sentence. I recognise, however, the need to ensure that any incentives are proportionate and I note the concerns expressed about the matter.

[Keir Starmer]

I spent many years working on proposals for early guilty pleas and I support them, but the underlying principle was always that the sentence or consequences were reduced for an early guilty plea, not increased for not pleading guilty. Does the charge not offend that principle, and was the Sentencing Council consulted before the charge was brought forth?

[Mr Vara]

I am not sure I follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. It seems pretty straightforward that at the moment we have a system whereby if somebody pleads guilty, it assists the criminal justice system, the witnesses, the victim and so on, and proper due regard is taken of that. In this instance, if a person pleads guilty, due regard is taken, but they should not plead guilty if they are not guilty. They should allow the court process to take its course.

[Keir Starmer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will happily give way, but I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is mindful that this is a time- limited debate and I will have less time to respond.

[Keir Starmer]

I will be brief, and I accept that the debate is time limited. The point I am making—it is a point of principle—is that the courts have always fixed the penalty and then reduced it for an early guilty plea. The penalty has never gone up because someone did not plead guilty in the first place. That is the fundamental principle that is being offended.

[Mr Vara]

The charge is not part of the sentencing process, and that has been made abundantly clear to magistrates and the judiciary. It is a contribution to court costs and is not intended to be taken into account for sentencing purposes. There has been confusion, and I want to put on the record the fact that it is not intended to be a means of sentencing.

Given the financial imperative to bring down public spending, the Government must ensure that the courts are adequately funded in the long term in a way that allows the budgetary challenges ahead to be met. There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I lay out for the House the history of the guidelines that I issued and my experience in operating them? I am well aware of the deeply held views on all sides, and very respectful of them, as I have been throughout the past seven years. I will therefore attempt this exercise as a factual chronology objectively stated so that people can see the conclusions that I have reached.

I was six weeks into my post as Director of Public Prosecutions when I had to decide whether to prosecute the mother and father of Dan James, a young and very gifted rugby player who was paralysed after an accident on the rugby pitch in Nuneaton and wished to end his life. He did not want to die alone and persuaded his parents to go with him to Dignitas. When they came back, they were arrested and interviewed, and I had to decide whether they would be prosecuted. I decided that they should not be prosecuted.

[John Pugh]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I would prefer it if the House allowed me just to lay out the history so that everybody can understand it. I will of course try to take on board all the points that are being made.

I took it to be the compassionate act of a loved one, and using the exercise that the DPP had, decided not to prosecute.

A courageous woman with multiple sclerosis, Debbie Purdy, was in the process of bringing a case against the DPP in our courts. It started as a case against my predecessor, but became a case against me, and it was reaching the final stages. She noticed the reasons that I had given, and she argued before the House of Lords judicial committee that the DPP should be required to set out in guidance the approach that was being taken, and would be taken, to assisted suicide.

[John Pugh]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

For the reasons I have given, I genuinely think it may be more helpful for the House if I just completed the exercise. I am deliberately trying not to put my views into this chronology so that people can simply see it for what it is, whatever view they take.

Debbie Purdy persuaded the committee that I should be required to produce guidelines. In the last judgment of the House of Lords judicial committee before it became the Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament Square, it ordered that I should do so. I was, of course, at that stage deeply aware of the views that were held on all sides, and I decided that a very wide public consultation was necessary so that the guidelines would be as fully informed as they possibly could be. I decided also to issue interim guidelines so that people could see the words on the page of the guidelines before the consultation exercise started, and so that it would be a meaningful consultation rather than one where views would be expressed in the abstract but without a real, detailed eye on what I was proposing.

The interim guidelines were underpinned by two principles. The first was that the criminal law should rarely, if ever, be used against those who compassionately assist loved ones to die at their request, so long as that person had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their life. The second was that very strong safeguards are needed to protect those who might be pressurised in any number of subtle ways. Those who encourage the death of the vulnerable should feel the full force of the law.

The response to that consultation exercise was huge. Most criminal justice consultation exercises have responses numbered in the low hundreds; the response to my consultation exercise was nearly 5,000, and that is treating all the heads of faiths as one respondee when, in truth, they were responding on behalf of very many within their communities. It was probably the widest consultation on this particular area of our law ever conducted. It included, as one would expect, members of the public, doctors, other healthcare professionals, representatives of all faith groups, judges, public servants, Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords. In the course of that exercise, I personally met many who were most concerned about the guidelines.

There was overwhelming support for the interim guidelines that I had published and the two principles that underpinned them: compassionate assistance to those who are clear they want to end their lives, yes; pressurising the vulnerable, no. Accordingly, when I issued the final guidance that is still in force, I adopted the same two underpinning principles. They have now been used for five years. I personally oversaw about 80 cases, looking at the details in each of the files, and made decisions in 79 of those cases that no prosecution should be brought, and there was no clamour to change the guidelines.

Throughout the process, I thought long and hard about the position of doctors and health professionals, and whether their acts of assistance should come within the guidelines, in favour of prosecution or against. I took the view then, and I still hold the view now, that if the DPP indicated that doctors or medical professionals were unlikely to be prosecuted for assisting, that would undermine the intention of Parliament when it passed the Suicide Act 1961. I took the view that Parliament was not prepared to go that far when it passed that Act, and that the DPP should not, by the back door, as it were, indicate in the guidance that doctors and health professionals would be unlikely to be prosecuted if they assisted. Therefore, in the guidelines, when they were first drafted and as they are now, a factor making it more likely that someone will be prosecuted is that they are a doctor or a health professional assisting someone.

That particular issue came to a head in the Tony Nicklinson case, which went to the Supreme Court recently. Tony Nicklinson, as many people in this House will know, suffered a series of strokes and became completely paralysed save that he could move his head and eyes. Because of his paralysed state, he could not carry out his wish to end his life without assistance. He applied to the High Court for an order—a declaration—that he be permitted a doctor to assist him in his death. When he lost his case in the High Court at the first stage, Mr Nicklinson embarked on the difficult and painful course of self-starvation, refusing nutrition, fluids and medical treatment. His case proceeded to the Supreme Court, as everybody here knows, and in June 2012 the majority held that there was an incompatibility between our current position and fundamental human rights, but because of the margin of appreciation they should not themselves make a declaration to that effect but leave it to Parliament to further consider the issue, and today is that opportunity.

[Nadine Dorries]

rose—

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I do just want to complete this exercise—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.

[Keir Starmer]

I hope that I have been faithful to my obligation to try to put this in a neutral, objective way, setting out the position.

As Director of Public Prosecutions I never expressed a view on the law; I faithfully applied the law. I have come to the position I now hold on the basis of my experience of the guidelines. It was not a pre-conceived view that I held back then, in answer to a comment that was made earlier; it is a view that I have arrived at on the basis of my experience.

My experience is that there are two inherent limitations in the guidelines that I issued. For the reasons I have explained, my understanding of the constitutional role of the DPP was that doctors and medical practitioners are more likely to be prosecuted. The first limitation is that, as a result, those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without exposing them to the law, but they cannot have the assistance of professionals. They can have amateur assistance from nearest and dearest, but they cannot have professional help in fulfilling their desire unless they have the means and the physical ability to get to Dignitas. One of the points that Debbie Purdy made to the judicial committee was that she wanted to live her life for as long as possible, although she wanted to end it at her own choosing, and that if she was forced to go to Dignitas she would have to end her life earlier because she would lose the physical means of getting there.

I understand those who say that we should revert to a position where nobody should be given any assistance at all, but we have arrived at a position where compassionate, amateur assistance from nearest and dearest is accepted but professional medical assistance is not, unless someone has the means and physical assistance to get to Dignitas. That to my mind is an injustice that we have trapped within our current arrangement.

On the second limitation in my guidelines, the only safeguard I could put into them was a requirement for an after-the-event investigation by the police into what had happened. Let me quote what the president of the Supreme Court said when he analysed that. This is what our most senior judge—not me—said:

“A system whereby a judge or other independent assessor is satisfied in advance that someone has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to die and for his or her suicide then to be organised in an open and professional way would…provide greater and more satisfactory protection for the vulnerable, than a system which involves a lawyer from the DPP’s office inquiring, after the event, whether the person who had killed himself or herself had such a wish”.

I have heard the comments about the safeguards in the Bill and I know how hard it was to come up with the right safeguards in my guidelines. It took me time to arrive at safeguards that I think could be generally accepted.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of this sitting, we were told that 85 Members had put in to speak and we were given guidance on how long our speeches should be. I fully appreciate that the current speaker is making a valuable contribution, but please could you remind the House yet again of the time limit you think people should adhere to without a compulsory time limit having to be set? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order. We are not wasting time this morning on points of order. There are many people who wish to speak.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will finish as quickly as I can. I understand the frustration of Members who are waiting to speak.

It took me a great deal of time and thought to arrive at appropriate safeguards in the guidelines. In my view the same amount of time and appropriate thought is necessary for the guidelines in the Bill. They have been discussed by others, so I will not repeat them, but what I will say is that I will be open to debate with anyone whether the safeguards are strong and robust enough, and I will work at Committee stage with anyone in this House to make sure not only that they are as strong and robust as possible, but that they have the best consensus possible among the different views held in this House.