John Downey

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Lady raises a large number of highly pertinent questions, and I hope she will forgive me if I say that I do not think I am in a position to answer all of them at the Dispatch Box today, particularly because my remit and responsibility in this matter is confined to a number of very specific things.

The hon. Lady says that she considers the scheme to be a shabby side deal; I am sure that will be noted in this House by those who had cause to develop or operate it. I do not think I can comment further on it than that. She makes the point that it is quite different from the Good Friday agreement, and I have no reason to disagree with her about that; I commented on that myself and said that it is quite distinct. Nevertheless, I come back to the point that I raised before, that my understanding is that it was done with the intention of taking the peace process forward, and done in a way that was not intended to prejudice, first, the rule of law and, secondly, the right of victims and relatives of victims to see justice be done. That was the basis on which it was proceeded with and not on some other shabby basis, as she describes it. However, I have to accept, in the light of what has happened in this case, that while I suppose it might be argued that had the letter never been sent, Mr Downey would never have appeared at Gatwick airport, nevertheless the circumstances of what has happened are very unsatisfactory.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will the Attorney-General confirm whether it would be effective for this Parliament to pass a resolution, or an amendment to a Bill, saying that these letters have no effect and should be ignored by the court in considering staying prosecutions?

[The Attorney-General]

The letters were statements of current fact. I do not think that, in themselves, they make any difference to the matter. It would be a matter of debate, on which we could engage, whether the letters could be rescinded, but that is a matter that would have to wait for another day.

Assisted Suicide

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak in a debate that has shown this House at its best, and I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on moving the motion and the Backbench Business Committee on finding time to debate it. I am in an unusual position, as I can happily support the motion and both amendments—and will do so if we go into the Division Lobby later.

I will start at the end by supporting amendment (b) on palliative care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) tabled and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I join other Members in paying tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies.

My local hospice is the Treetops hospice in Derbyshire, which does amazing work, and, speaking as someone who has lost a partner to a cancer, I have seen the great care that it gives people in the final stage of their life. We never talked about whether she would have chosen a quicker, less painful and more dignified way of dying, but I remember sitting there for four days while she lay dying, thinking that if I ever got into such a situation I might prefer to go in a less painful and more dignified way.

I join those other Members who support changing the law to allow people that very difficult choice at the end of their life, but that is not what this debate, the motion or the amendment that stands in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is about; it is about endorsing what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done. His guidance is admirable, I have no criticism of it and I hope that it remains in place and is applied consistently.

I do not think any Member wants the issue to be subject to a different court decision, which moves the line in the sand back or forward a bit, or subject to a different DPP changing the tone of the guidance. Parliament should draw that line, saying, “This is what we think is acceptable; anything beyond that, we think not,” and if the line is to move, that should be down to Parliament as well. That is why I support amendment (a), and I do so not because I want to list loads of criteria in law.

If someone compassionately assists a loved one in ending their life when that is their choice, Parliament should say that that is not a crime. What should be a crime is trying maliciously to encourage someone to end their life when that is not their choice, when it is not what they want and when it is not done through compassion.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but in reality is it not the practical, individual decisions that matter? Even if Parliament did come up with a set of criteria, would it not be their application individually that mattered? It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for Parliament to try to set criteria that could be binding in every individual situation.

[Nigel Mills]

The point I am trying to make is that I am not sure whether it would be right for Parliament to list a load of criteria. The feeling today appears to be that we do not think that people should be prosecuted for compassionately assisting a loved one in their free choice to end their life, but that someone should be prosecuted for maliciously encouraging or enticing someone to commit suicide when they do not really want to do so. That principle could clearly be put into statute without having to go through the individual circumstances of every situation. That would then leave the DPP free to consider in each case whether the action was compassionate or malicious. At the moment, the law says that if one assists someone to commit suicide—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak up a bit, because I think we all want to hear him, and I would like to hear him?

[Nigel Mills]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am full of a cold, and my throat is not quite as strong as I would like it to be.

If Parliament intends that compassionately assisting a loved one to die should not be prosecuted but maliciously encouraging someone who does not really want to die should be prosecuted, then that is what the law should be, and it is down to the DPP to put in place guidance on how to distinguish between the two.

[Alun Michael]

Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the whole point is that a judgment has to be made on whether the law is being pursued or whether there are factors that show that there are grounds for a prosecution? That is what the guidance is all about. What is needed is not a change in the law but for us to applaud how the guidance has been provided, based on what Parliament has already decided.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Parliament decided 50 years ago that all prosecutions should require the DPP’s consent. I contend that in his guidance the DPP is not strictly giving guidance on the law. The law says that assisted suicide is a crime that can be punished by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. I would rather the guidance said that compassionately assisting a loved one should not be a crime, but the malicious stuff should be, and then it could be used to determine exactly when a prosecution would be due. I strongly believe that Parliament should draw the line in the sand on this very difficult issue. We should not be leaving it to the whim of the courts or to individual DPPs slowly to move the line forwards or backwards depending on their view. It is right that Parliament should decide.

I welcome the fact that we have had this debate so that we can endorse the current position of the DPP, and I will support amendment (a) to try to put that on a firmer footing.