Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am grateful, as the House will be, for the excellent, erudite and expert speeches that we have heard on the Bill so far. I join those who have criticised the size and, indeed, the content of the Bill. Here we have yet another large criminal justice Bill to add yet more criminal offences to the already overburdened statute book at a time when there is an acute shortage of prison places. In the 10 years since 1997, 3,000 new criminal offences have been added to the statute book. In light of the acute shortage of prison places, I tabled a Written Question to ask Her Majesty’s Government, "““whether, in light of the acute shortage of prison places, they will review all the criminal offences created since 1997 carrying a prison sentence””." I thought that I would get a reasonable response to that, and that the Government would be as worried as I am about all these offences, with perhaps many unintended consequences, which they had not thought of in the beginning. The Answer was: "““The Government do not consider that it would be helpful to review all offences created since any particular date, but all departments that propose new offences are required to refer these to the Ministry of Justice for consideration of prison population implications””.—[Official Report, 7/1/08; cols. WA 170-71.]" Has that department seen this Bill? Have they considered all the implications of all the new offences that carry a prison sentence? Have they considered whether they are all necessary and, indeed, whether the prison system can cope with them in its present parlous state? We shall have to see what the answers to those questions are. Another item has, understandably, not received much attention. As a trade unionist since the age of 16, I was particularly perturbed that a Labour Government, who had opposed a previous Tory Act that limited the right of prison officers to strike, should itself re-import that provision into this Bill. Whatever has happened to collective bargaining, which the Labour Party and the trade union movement have fought for throughout their existence? That provision is a disgrace to the Labour Party, which, after all, was created out of the trade union movement and which, I hope, still believes in free collective bargaining. Public servants should not be in any worse a position than private-sector employees in fighting for their pay and rights. It was particularly insensitive of the Government to introduce this provision just as they were telling the police that they could not have the full award of the police pay committee. I move on to Clause 126, which deals with hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. We have already heard all the reasons why that clause should not appear in this Bill from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I want to approach it from a secular point of view. In 1957 I was a member of the court and council of the University of Reading. The vice-chancellor of the university at that time, whom I liked and knew well, was Sir John Wolfenden. Of course, Sir John produced an excellent report. Unfortunately, it was 10 years before it was implemented. Sir John brought the issue alive and said why homosexuality should be decriminalised for consenting adults over the age of 21. I supported that absolutely. That was a time when, if you supported the Wolfenden report, you were held in great suspicion. Make no mistake about that; it was not very easy. Things have moved on, and I am very glad that they have done so. Unfortunately, some of the leaders of the gay and lesbian community—Stonewall in particular—are now demanding not equality, which we all agree with, but privilege. That goes too far. We are perfectly in favour of equality in matters of sexual orientation, but I am concerned about the implications of Clause 126 for free speech, particularly as it omits the free speech protection given in respect of racial and religious hatred legislation. People are already confused about what they can and cannot say; that, in itself, is a restriction on free speech. Indeed, they are at risk of arrest. Frightening cases have already been brought by the police, which should give us pause before passing this clause. Let me remind noble Lords of some of them. In 2005, a Christian couple, Joe and Helen Roberts, were interrogated by the police because they complained about their local council’s gay rights policy. All they did was make a complaint. The Bishop of Chester was investigated by the Cheshire constabulary in November 2003 after he told his local newspaper of research showing that some homosexuals reorientated to heterosexuality. He was perfectly entitled to say that without being interviewed by the police. In December 2005, the police questioned the family values campaigner, Lynette Burrows, after she expressed the view on a radio programme that homosexual men may not be suitable for raising children. She was entitled to express that opinion without the police coming down on her like a ton of bricks. Apparently Stonewall has a solution. Ben Summerskill, one of the main proponents of a homosexual incitement offence, believes that such an offence would allow religious beliefs about homosexuality to be stated, provided they were expressed in a temperate way. Who is going to judge what is temperate? We could all produce differing definitions. There are real dangers in this point of view. In conclusion, Stonewall appears to have undue influence on Government policy. It is certainly due to their pressure that this clause was introduced. Stonewall does not have the unqualified support of the gay community; make no mistake about that. Peter Tatchell and Matthew Parris have both spoken against the clause because they believe that it will not help homosexuals and lesbians. Furthermore, Stonewall appears to believe that somehow gays are less able to stand up for themselves than everybody else. I do not believe that that is true. They are just the same as anybody else and can fight their corner as they wish. By its actions Stonewall is putting them at greater risk of physical attack. I believe that the clause is unnecessary and should be struck out. If not, at least we should have the paragraph about free speech added to it as it applies to other legislation on race and religion. Without that it will be an extremely dangerous clause.