Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, in deference to the noble and learned Lord, I will not refer to the Bill as a ragbag, but he cannot deny that it is made up of a collection of unrelated measures, some of such importance that most would take the view that they should have been the subject of separate Bills. Some in this category, such as the changes to the law of murder, were scarcely considered in the Commons because of an absurdly restricted timetable. The Bill contains the new offence of encouraging or assisting suicide. In my view, there is nothing wrong with creating such an offence, but the danger of popping it into a Bill such as this is already apparent, with pro-euthanasia campaigners indicating their wish to amend the Bill so as to allow assisted suicide to at least some extent. It would be appalling if they were allowed to succeed. I agree with the Minister that whether assisted suicide should be allowed is a very complex and highly controversial matter. The subject, if Parliament wishes to consider it yet again, should be treated as the very important matter that it is and not as if all that is required is a little tweaking and finessing of existing law. Clause 61 repeals a provision that only last year the Government put on the statute book. That is truly extraordinary behaviour and, so far as I know, behaviour without precedent. It is not right to say that, being up against the clock, the Government had no option but to act as they did. Indeed, I was having an early dinner with my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, who throughout has been an enormous help to me on this issue and who will speak later on the matter touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. When we were having dinner that evening last May, there were many hours left for the amendment to be further considered in the Commons and for it to come back to us, but after a short while we were told that the Government were not going to contest the matter further. It is then said that the Government made it plain that, although accepting the amendment, they would seek the first opportunity to remove it. I have to tell your Lordships—I shall not mince my words—that that is simply untrue. I need only refer your Lordships to what the Minister said in the other place on 7 May last year. She said that, ""between now and commencement we will prepare guidance … explaining the operation of the new offences … Of course there will be an opportunity—doubtless there will be frequent opportunities—to revisit the issue in due course if it is the will of this House or the other House to do so. On that basis, I would like to propose that we do not disagree with the Lords in their said amendment".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/08; col. 808.]" It is ludicrous to suggest that those carefully chosen words were an indication that the Government were going to remove the free speech safeguard in the very next Session without even waiting to see whether in practice it caused any difficulties for prosecutors. I want to mention two other matters regarding Clause 61. Jack Straw asserted in the Commons that I had always made it plain that my purpose was to make a conviction for stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation more difficult. Of course, I have never said anything of the sort. What I have said often is that, while not out to weaken the protection that the Government say that they seek to give gays, I want what is outside the scope of the Bill to be made absolutely plain in order to avoid the scandals of the past and to protect freedom of expression. Not only have I said that, but Mr Straw’s own notes on clauses say that the free speech clause does not raise the threshold for the offence or make prosecutions more difficult. It has been suggested that any possible difficulties can be dealt with by guidance and that that is better than legislation. That, I suggest, is plain wrong. Guidance is not binding, so it can be ignored. Not only is a simple, short, pithy free speech clause more likely to be read than reams of guidance, but it is much more likely to be heeded. Furthermore, there is already guidance available in the shape of the 2007 CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Homophobic and Transphobic Crime, which, far from inspiring confidence, seems to make the case for the free speech clause. Somewhat surprisingly, the document says that homophobia does not necessarily mean hatred of gays but covers mere dislike of their practices. Basing their reasoning on the Stephen Lawrence definition of a racial incident, the authors go on to say that a homophobic incident is any incident perceived to be such, ""by the victim or any other person"." So there you have it. By that guidance, the police are as good as encouraged to investigate incidents that amount to no more than a member of the public complaining that someone else has had the temerity to criticise homosexual practices. Indeed, that is precisely what has been happening; it is what has caused outrage and precisely what gave birth to the free speech clause. It is what happened to the Roberts couple from Fleetwood; it is what happened to Lynette Burrows, who dared to question the desirability of gay adoption on the radio. There is a real danger that similar scandals will occur in the future, but it is a danger that the free speech clause can help to avoid. I understand that new guidance is promised, but I would not like to be in the shoes of the person charged with drafting it. He would clearly be failing in his duty if he did not give a clear explanation of why there was a free speech clause in the religious hatred offence but no such clause in the sexual orientation offence and if he did not explain what weight should be attached to the right of free speech in one case rather than the other. It would have to be a work of some ingenuity and subtlety—beyond the grasp, I fear, of most of us. Frankly, I am amazed at the Government’s sheer recklessness in being prepared to create such an anomaly in our law. No decent person supports the stirring up of hatred, but no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. The law, as it stands with the free speech safeguard, makes the point with complete clarity. It is sad that the Government should be setting out to blur what is now clear and to remove a protection that events have already shown to be necessary. They could not pick a worse time to behave in this way. There is, right now in this country, an intolerance of Christians of a sort that I never thought I would see. Street preachers are threatened and Christians expressing mainstream orthodox views on sexual behaviour are harassed and abused. A marriage registrar is bullied at work for asking to be excused from civil partnership duties; a housing charity worker is suspended for discussing with a colleague his beliefs about same-sex relationships. I fear that, if the Government get their way, not only will this intolerance grow, and those bent on silencing all who disagree with them gain new strength, but many will take the revocation of the safeguard as a signal that voicing views on morality—even making jokes about homosexuality—could attract the attention of the police and that they would be wise to keep quiet. People will be reluctant to express their views, when the right to express views, including views that other people might not like, is one of the hallmarks of a free society. I confess that I am not greatly concerned about what people may think of the Government. I do, however, fear what people will think of us if we supinely let the Government get their way on this matter.