European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The UK is to leave the EU. That decision was taken two years ago. The question is whether we crash out or support the withdrawal agreement, to be followed by a period of transition and the future arrangements on trade and relationships.
Assuming that we are not trying to reverse the referendum—I think there is no majority, either in the country or in the House, for that—the majority of us support the Prime Minister’s deal. The majority of Conservative supporters support that, and I suspect that the majority of Labour supporters support that. Other parties, including from Northern Ireland, would as well, given the choice.
Our responsibility is to find where there is an overlap between what is possible and what is right. I believe that the negotiated agreement on withdrawal is that position.
The Opposition, to be reasonably polite, seem to resemble members of the scarabaeidae family who are upside down, pushing in the wrong direction and do not quite know where they are going. If the choice for the country is between chaos and compromise, I think this agreement is the right way of being sensible. I back the plan in the national interest.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
The first part of the Leveson inquiry took place six years ago. Many things have happened since that time and many changes have taken place. The manifesto was clear, but there is a consultation process which I, as Secretary of State, have to go through.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
This House never intended vulnerable people in less-well-off areas to lose £100 several times a minute on fixed odds betting terminals. When will we have the opportunity to bring the stake down to £2?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
Mr Speaker, I know that you always encourage brevity in topical questions, so I apologise for giving a tediously processy response. Although we launched the review in October 2016, purdah interrupted the final stages of our consideration of the evidence received and the subsequent internal cross-Government process of approval and sign-off, so I am afraid we are back at the start of the process. As a consequence of that taking at least 12 weeks, I would not expect any further announcement until October at the earliest.
Assisted Suicide
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who in fact takes me to my next point, which is that no one could fail to be struck by the clearly unaffected joy of Debbie Purdy and her caring husband, Omar Puente, when they believed that there had been clarification of the stage at which they might jointly have been able to decide when she could die. The fact that they seemed to be overjoyed by that showed an essential truth in relation to them and to the decisions that they personally needed and wanted to make—and wanted the law to allow them to make.
Having rattled through the difficulties in relation to the issue, may I move on to the motion and to the amendments before the House? The motion welcomes the Director of Public Prosecution’s guidance on cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, and it is certainly my view that, as others have said, the guidelines are sensible and proportionate. The hon. Member for Croydon South rightly said that they are compassionate, and many members of the public believe that they are.
When the public saw that Diane Pretty, despite all her efforts, eventually did suffocate—exactly what she did not want, because she wanted to be able to end her life before that with assistance, if necessary—they found the DPP’s response to the case of Debbie Purdy a few years later was proportionate, and it had their broad support. The motion does not seek to change the law.
Amendment (a), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, would not change the law, either. It
“invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis.”
When looking at amendments and at quasi-legal documents, I think that the safest way to interpret them is to interpret what they say as meaning what they say, and the amendment simply asks the Government to consult on whether the DPP’s guidance should be put on a statutory basis.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The hon. Lady is helping the debate. If the Government were forced to hold such a consultation, would it be based precisely on the DPP’s guidelines as they are, or would it open up the debate to state that some of the guidelines are wrong, that there should be not just assisted suicide but death on request, or that the situation ought to involve the chronically ill and some of the physically handicapped? Would the consultation be constricted, because if it were not, why would we hold it?
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman, too, anticipates what I am going to say next, because having clarified what I believe to be the purpose of amendment (a), which is to invite the Government to consult, I believe also that it would invite the public to become involved in a debate, and no one in this House, given the difficulties in relation to the issue, should be afraid of that.
There are issues related to the current guidance, but there are wider issues, too, and we should not be afraid of debating them. There are the results of the Commission on Assisted Dying, which recommended permitting a doctor to assist suicide for the terminally ill and defined who the terminally ill are, and there is the issue of whether that recommendation would assist people who suffer from locked-in syndrome, or even Debbie Purdy, who suffered from multiple sclerosis but might not have been considered terminally ill. We should not run away from debating those issues, and it is important in these circumstances that there be a debate. That is why there is some good sense in amendment (a).
Sir Peter Bottomley
The unofficial commission started, it might fairly be described, with a majority of commissioners who believed in some of the results that they came out with.
Emily Thornberry
I do not wish to apportion any motives one way or the other to people who want to be involved in the debate; it is best that we have the debate and that the public are encouraged to be involved. The DPP has, in my view, come up with very sensible guidelines on when a prosecution for assisted suicide should begin, because it is appropriate for the Crown Prosecution Service and the DPP to be informed by a wider public debate.
For the reasons that I set out at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the public would not necessarily like to have a debate, unless they have coming up in front of them cases such as Debbie Purdy’s, which they cannot avoid, but it is our responsibility as elected representatives to listen to the public and to encourage and engender debate, and that is the good sense behind amendment (a).
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We can understand the individual cases that have been brought to the House this afternoon. There are about 5,000 suicides a year in this country. If we had an equivalent system to that in Oregon, which is the total reverse of what some have been talking about—it has physician-assisted suicides—we would have about 10,000 assisted suicides a year. If we were like the Dutch, whose position goes beyond assisted suicide to death with or without request—that is different from suicide—we would, again, have about 10,000. My wife and I were impressed by a Dutchman who had been working abroad but went back to his home country. He was asked by his doctors why he was keeping his handicapped son alive. He asked for a transfer to this country, where there is care—and not just palliative care.
No one in this House would want to argue for ending the life of those who are physically handicapped or mentally ill, or for agreeing to the requests of the clinically depressed—those most likely to commit suicide—who want to end their life. If we start to go down that line—and that is the only purpose that there can be behind amendment (a)—we will be in a different debate from the one so well introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I pay tribute to him for the letter that he sent to us all, for the way he spoke on his motion, and for what he has on his website, on which he has kept his constituents up to date with his views.
There is only one reason for amendment (a), and it is not to ensure statutory enforcement of the DPP’s guidelines. I have not found a precedent for any statutory enactment of the DPP’s guidelines. If my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General knows of any, I would be grateful if he would correct me. The only reason to want the Government to decide on whether to consult is in order to go way beyond—first slightly beyond, and then further beyond—to the question of whether the issue be confined to assisted suicide.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I hate to repeat myself, but the amendment is absolutely clear. It suggests only that the Government should consult on the matter. There is no certainty in that; the consultation may go completely the other way. The situation is unique, as I said. The framework of the law on suicide and assisted suicide is quite different from that on other matters.
Sir Peter Bottomley
But when I asked one of the right hon. Lady’s hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)—whether he would support the amendment, the answer was not clear.
Mr Winnick
I am quite happy to support the amendment, if that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It is not a question of whether I am satisfied; the question is: what is the purpose of the amendment? We all heard the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) the first time round, and what she said was engaging, but it was not the reason for amendment (a). If we are not talking about going beyond assisted suicide, what are we talking about?
Sir Peter Bottomley
I will not give way again. It would have been better, if we had more time, if someone had read out all 16 of the DPP’s public interest factors tending in favour of prosecution, and the six public interest factors tending against prosecution, which, interestingly, start at nought rather than one. It is worth getting those into people’s minds. I hope that the newspapers will report those factors, if they report any part of the debate.
I have probably been with as many dying people as others. I have been in the House for 36 years, there are about four people a year with whom I spend a lot of time in my constituency, and I have had family experiences, too. I have probably seen more dead people than anyone, because of various things that I have been witness to in my life. Death is not something to be worried about; pain is, and misery is. I shall not even think of contradicting the things that many hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, but on the DPP’s role, I point out that I back what Ken Macdonald said in 2004, when he issued a nine-point statement of independence. One of the points was as follows:
“The people of this country want a prosecution service that is confident, strong and independent. Casework decisions taken with fairness, impartiality and integrity will deliver justice for victims, witnesses, defendants and the public. Casework decisions that, for whatever reason, lack these characteristics risk miscarriages of justice. They undermine that confidence in the rule of law, which underpins our democratic society.”
If we had a statutory declaration of the principles that we have all accepted, and the DPP brought up some other issue that he wanted to bring in, it would require a statutory change. What is the point of that? If the DPP thought one of his current points was too strong and should be weakened, would he have to come to Parliament again? That is the argument against even considering whether the Government should consider consultation.
The last area I wish to examine relates to the fact that too many suicides take place in this country. Whether we ought to have an extra 20 or 30 instead of having people going abroad is one issue, but multiplying the number of assisted suicides by 100 relates to a completely different debate. What sort of number would there be then? What sort of pressures would people feel if they thought that they were being awkward or untidy, or they were experiencing pain they did not want to experience? Pain is a part of life. It is experienced by women giving birth—
Sir Peter Bottomley
Well, I am told that it is. It is experienced by many of us doing things, whether we are talking about physical pain or mental pain. People are called on to do things as parents or as children which are awful but have to be survived. I hope that the result of this debate is that we let more people survive, and we keep these guidelines as they are. They are accepted by us all.
Dr David Kelly
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General
The evidence is there in the Library to see, and it will be available to the public as well. I hope that those who have concerns will take the time to look at the material. Of course, the background to this is a human tragedy of great pain for the family, and that is why I hope that people will be convinced that this matter should now be laid to rest.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
What in my view distinguishes this case from the sad case of Jay Abatan, who died on 29 January 1999—an inquest was held 10 years later, at which new evidence came forward—is that in this case there were no new witnesses or evidence. In relying on the work of Lord Hutton’s team and others, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that those of us who believe that Lord Hutton came to the wrong conclusion on the main parts of the inquiry can maintain that belief. If he had come to a different conclusion and used a gentler form of words than “sexed up”—or whatever the expression was—we would have had a near perfect ending to what was a very bad episode in which the previous Government behaved appallingly.
The Attorney-General
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The review that I carried out was focused on the cause of death, because it was the calling into question of the inquiry’s findings and of the signing of the death certificate that started the spiral of speculation that has grown from that. I focused on that issue and my conclusions are directed to it. I appreciate that there are wider issues that Lord Hutton tried to address, but they are not matters that I have sought to reopen. I know that those matters remain controversial to many.
Voting by Prisoners
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I might have tried in the past to go through a history of a Member of the other place, I might have been called to order, so I wonder how much of this background we are going to get.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
When someone is convicted of an offence, a number of elements are available to the court in disposing of the sentence. I cannot think of a single objective that is met by withdrawing the right to be registered to vote and to vote. It is clearly not a deterrent; I do not see that it is a punishment; I do not see that it helps rehabilitation; and I do not think that it is much of a penance either. The question is, therefore, why do we do it?
I think that Parliament should decide these issues. It should not be for the Supreme Court across the square or the European Court. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing a debate in Westminster Hall on 11 January on this matter, and I am glad that we are having this debate now. The motion is defective in terms of setting policy, although it is very good for expressing opinion. I can agree with its first elements, but as my amendment—it would replace the last clause from the last semicolon in the motion—states, it would be a good idea to note that nearly
“a third of men have by the age of 30 been convicted of a serious criminal offence for which they could”
be sent to jail for six months or more. Hon. Members who have spoken about the problem of people breaking the law were right to phrase it that way. The question of whether someone is sent to jail as well is an extra issue. If we are going to say that breaking the law means that the right to vote should go, a third of us here would have lost the right to vote at some stage in our lives. Fortunately, however, most courts do not use a sentence of six months or more for offences for which one could be used.
We could split the motion—we might have to return to this point—between its European side, with which I mostly agree, and the question of whether we should maintain the blanket ban, or whether we should either say, as the Government suggest we might, a certain number of years, or, as others have said, a certain period before release. We can debate those issues without trying to put the two together. Although the debate has been interesting—having listened to it for four hours, I have probably gained as much as many who have been here the whole time—I believe that we ought to consider the issues separately. By all means, we can talk to the public and the newspapers, and look at the good cartoons in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, most of which could form the basis of a good speech. However, we ought to return to the question: what is the objective of sentencing policy that makes the withdrawal of the right to vote so important?
I leave the House a question: who has the responsibility to register those who are convicted and sent to jail? If I am already on the electoral register, is there a system for the courts to tell my returning officer to take me off it, or am I just left on? If I have set up a proxy beforehand, would that still work? Those are matters of detail, which are not important today. The important question today is: do we, as the motion says we should, acknowledge
“the treaty obligations of the UK”?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on that. As for the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), whom I knew before he became middle-aged, he said that it was not the right time to bring the issue up, when the period that was “not the right time” allowed for more than five years of procrastination, with one election followed by another within five years. That was not the strongest argument that he brought forward this afternoon.
Sir Peter Bottomley
In the debate in Westminster Hall on 11 January, I quoted Justice Dennis Challeen. He said—I will précis it—that we want people to be responsible, but we deny them more responsibility; that we want them to think of others, but we put them in situations where they do not. As for using the vote, if people could start saying what kind of society they want to be part of, and if they want to be law-abiding subjects and useful citizens on release, as many do, then it could be part rehabilitation. However, I do not believe that by giving the vote we will suddenly find the reconviction rate dropping by 20 points. That would be ambitious. Those are ambitions that we ought to have—I am glad that tribute has been paid to what the Lord Chancellor is proposing to do to change our penal system to make it work better—but would it not be even better if many fewer people were committing criminal offences for the first time, and if the period in which they did were reduced even faster?
Winston Churchill’s speech as Home Secretary from 1910 can be quoted, but that point is on the record, so I will not go into that. What I would say, to those who want to start condemning the Prison Reform Trust or the Howard League, or those such as myself—I have served on the council of both Nacro and Mind, the National Association for Mental Health, and I was chairman of the Children’s Society, trying to deal with those at risk of becoming serious and serial criminals—is that we have to recognise that most of the people whom we are talking about are bad, mad or sad, or a combination. However, they are not always that all the time, so the sooner we start learning how to get deterrents, prevention and rehabilitation and can convert them to law-abiding citizens, the better.
I hope that we shall have this debate again, but after splitting the issues, so that we can make progress on both.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I have heard the word “rights” used a lot this afternoon, but surely equal weight should be given to the word “responsibilities”. If someone behaves irresponsibly—criminally—they should lose those rights. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that he is angry about this issue, and the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that it makes him feel sick. I suggest a remedy—a constructive one, may I humbly add?—and that is a steely spine and a determination to rid us of all these human rights laws. It beggars belief that we are having to discuss this subject at all. It only reminds us in this House how impotent we really are. Tied to the well-intended European convention on human rights, subjugated by judges and bureaucrats in Europe, and told we may have to pay £100 million to disfranchised prisoners, we are left humiliated in this place.
Preventing prisoners from having the right to vote is a point of principle for us all. They lost it in 1870, and my constituents say that they should not get it back today. I agree with the former Law Lord, Lord Hoffmann, that while democracy and freedom are certainly human rights, the right to vote is a constitutional right and is therefore different. In my view, prisons should punish. I appreciate that moves are afoot for the emphasis to be more on rehabilitation. I implore our Government that that must not be at the expense of justice.
There are two prisons in my constituency, HMP The Verne and the young offenders institution, both of which are on Portland. The Prison Officers Association already believes that prison today is no deterrent. We hear repeatedly of repeat offenders, and why? It is because there is no deterrent. Most law-abiding citizens do not have the rights and privileges that prisoners have. That is what I hear from those who guard today’s prisoners.
I understand that the Government are considering pursuing the minimum legal requirements laid down in the European Court of Human Rights ruling. As I understand it, that would mean withdrawing the right to vote from the most serious offenders: those who have been incarcerated for four years or more. With respect, that misses the point entirely. It would be an ill-considered fudge brought upon us by our coalition partners. It was always a Lib Dem promise—never ours. Such a fudge will encourage prisoners to sue the Government. Already, we hear that lawyers are circling like vultures, waiting for convicted men and women to make financial gain from this farce.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Would it not be best, therefore, to set the penalty at the cost of a bottle of House of Commons Speaker’s whisky, which is £20, and then to limit the legal aid to the sum that could be gained, or the case would be dropped?
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is much more learned than I am, and he makes an interesting point.
Finally, I shall touch on the mechanics of giving prisoners the vote. How will we do it? Will we canvass prison cells? Will we knock on each door and ask, “What can we do to get you to vote for us?” Might murders and rapists affect the outcome of an election in a marginal seat? It sounds ridiculous and it is ridiculous. It is also completely unworkable. Surely our criminal justice system is for us and us alone.
During the election, we promised a British Bill of Rights that would balance a citizen’s rights more carefully with their responsibilities. It is time that we replaced the European convention on human rights. As one of the oldest democracies on Earth, I think we can be trusted to look after our citizens.