I, too, start from the premise that anything proposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay is almost certainly correct. However, I have a problem here which is different from the one that has been mentioned. The thrust of the noble Baroness’s argument depends to a very large extent on cases of suicide, but this provision is not written in terms of suicide. I may be missing a very obvious point but it is not linked to any section of the Bill that refers to suicide; it is simply a proposed new clause that deals with the death of a minor. In this context, the only interests being considered are those of the surviving siblings. It is not difficult to imagine cases in which, due to the parents’ mental state, publicity about the death of a young child will be unbelievably distressing. Here, we are picking out the interests of one class of people, whereas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said, perhaps we should be thinking of amending the Bill by using better language relating to exceptional circumstances. My plea to my noble friend Lady Finlay is to take away the amendment and to see whether it can be drafted in a tighter way, specifically limited to very special circumstances, of which suicide is the outstanding example.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Neill of Bladen
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c706 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:52:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565670
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565670
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565670