§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord BroxbourneMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given, are giving or propose to give consideration to a review of the law relating to euthanasia; and what has been, or will be, the nature and scope of such review.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)My Lords, the question of mercy killing was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in their report on offences against the person, published in March 1980, and had been reviewed earlier by the Royal Commission on capital punishment in 1953. Both reports concluded that a distinction in law between mercy killing and other offences of homicide could not be recommended. The Government, while 220 acknowledging that there may be individual cases in which killing is done wholly from motives of compassion, accept this view.
§ Lord BroxbourneMy Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? Is there not a case for further inquiry now? While all would, or should, accept the paramount necessity of safeguards against abuse, was there not a natural sadness when recently a respected judge felt it necessary under the present law to send somebody, whom he described as "Christian and compassionate", to prison for harkening to the entreaties of a friend in distress? Is it not something of a paradox that whereas suicide ceased to be an offence in law more than 20 years ago, it is still a crime to assist another? Will my noble friend have regard to the growing sentiment among thinking people, of which there was recent evidence in a powerful plea in the Sunday Times (a responsible organ not known for its radical views), for the need for review, revision and rationalisation of the law? Will the Government institute an expert and representative inquiry?
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, my noble friend has referred to the case, I take it, of Mrs. Hough, who found herself in a most difficult and distressing situation with which we sympathise. But we do not believe that the general law should be framed in a way which might allow less scrupulous people to act for financial gain, from malice, or from other base motives against those rendered vulnerable by age or illness. I have reminded my noble friend of two full reviews of the law in this respect. I would remind him also that they revealed substantial difficulties and disadvantages in the way of the reform that he advocates; and that Bills with a similar purpose were refused a Second Reading by your Lordships' House in 1969 and again in 1975—by 85 votes to 23 on the latter occasion.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, may I ask the Minister, with the greatest respect, whether he does not consider that in view of the life and death issues raised by euthanasia—religious, moral, and theological—Question Time may not be the best occasion for discussing those grave matters?
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, if the noble and learned Lord is seeking to shorten my interrogation, I agree with him.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords—
§ Lord BoothbyMy Lords, may I be permitted to ask a brief question?
The Lord Bishop of NorwichMy Lords, notwithstanding his comments, is the Minister aware that the Prelates on these Benches and in fact the Church at large were particularly encouraged by the Government's very sympathetic understanding of the Church's concern for the sanctity of human life when this question of euthanasia was last raised in this House? I had thought that it was in 1976, but I bow to the greater wisdom of the noble Lord, the Minister.
221 Is the Minister also aware that the growing support by the Government for the hospice movement, rather than for euthanasia, has also been noted with much gratitude by the Church? Finally, will the Minister take note that the same principle of the sanctity of human life, which is at the very heart of the Judaeo-Christian tradition of our country, is again raised in an acute form in the Warnock report, concerning the control on experimentation on live human embryos? Clearly the Minister will not want to comment on that aspect in detail at this stage but it is all of a piece in terms of the matter before us.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's recognition of the support of Her Majesty's Government for the hospice movement. There are some 90 hospices in this country at the moment, of which about 50 per cent. receive some kind of Government grant, and there are more than 100 home-care teams as well. We share the views of the established Church on the sanctity of human life, but the right reverend Prelate is right to anticipate that I cannot comment on the Warnock Report.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to quote briefly a few words from the Sunday Times?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, I think the House would not expect the noble Lord to quote—even though briefly, which I question. Therefore, I hope he will ask a question. We have a long debate in front of us, and we do not want to go on for too long.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I was about to ask the question whether I might be allowed to quote briefly from the Sunday Times.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyVery well, my Lords, I will not quote, but I do recall—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that his noble friend and I recall a Sunday Times editorial of 14th December 1984 which said that this issue had been swept under the carpet and that it was about time the Government took it out and had another look at it? Is he further aware that there are a large number of people who recognise that, although this is a difficult and complex issue, it is about time we had another look at it, and that his noble friend is entirely right in that view?
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, I am now aware that there was an interesting article in that newspaper, but I am not aware that it is yet time to review the law.
§ Lord KinnairdMy Lords, can my noble friend please tell us whether, should any noble Lord making an inordinately long speech apparently succumb to the 222 heat of the television lights, that would be classed as euthanasia?
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, surely we are treating this subject in a somewhat frivolous manner. We as Peers have privileges. One of those privileges we have as human beings is the privilege of choice, which, alone out of creation, has been given to man.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, the ox lives and dies because it has no other choice. We have a choice, and that choice is given to us by the Creator. To deny us that choice is tyranny.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, my question is this. The case we have in mind has involved sending a woman to prison for not agreeing with us. This is the behaviour of an inquisition, and not a court of law.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, if I can infer a question from what the noble Lord has said, I would answer it by saying that the people who the noble Lord seeks to help are, by definition, weak and defenceless. If he opens those of them who wish to die to the hands of the merciful, he also exposes those who are afraid to die to the hands of the merciless.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, on a somewhat lighter note, does not the healthy appearance of your Lordships' House this afternoon indicate, as indeed do your Lordships, that anyone trying to obtain euthanasia for this House will have an uphill task?
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, the shorter and more pithy the House makes its exchanges the longer its expectation of life will be, I am sure.
§ Lord BoothbyMy Lords, may I ask a 10-second question? Does the noble Lord not think, in a century which has seen more people killed than any other, that at the end of the day individuals in that century have a right to choose whether to stick it out a little longer or to call it a day? Surely that is reasonable considering that science can call it a day so quickly and painlessly.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, I repeat that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that life is sacred. The choice that the Government have is how best to protect those who wish to continue to live from those who wish that they should not.