Coroners and Justice Bill

We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for initiating this important debate. First, I declare my interest, as set out in the Register, and in particular as a partner in Beachcroft LLP and a practising solicitor. I completely agree with the response of my noble friend Lord Henley, who said: ""It was the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, though, who probably got it right when he said he had considerable doubts as to whether it was needed at all".—[Official Report, 18 May 2009; col. 1295.]" We all then awaited the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who summed up that debate. He did not answer any of the questions that noble Lords had raised, but merely said: ""We heard some interesting speeches on criminal memoirs. I think there will be interesting debates on that, too".—[Official Report, 18 May 2009; col. 1301.]" He will not have been disappointed by this debate. On that occasion he relied on the fact that the courts would have, ""a wide discretion on whether to impose an order".—[Official Report, 18 May 2009; col. 1302.]" That is a pretty threadbare defence, and we need to hear much more. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who made some extremely important points, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who said that the clause would have a hugely dampening effect and also create uncertainty. These questions must be answered. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, gave us the historical context and said—I respect his views—that it is a largely obsolete problem and that the clause is unnecessary and would interfere with freedom of speech. All these are relevant points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, expressed the view that we have shared on many occasions that there is too much legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, stressed that we all find it difficult to balance creative expression against heinous crimes and asked what conclusion we should reach. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke for all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate when she said that this would have a chilling effect. That is what worries many people, so it is important that I set out the views of these Benches. They are, first, that people who commit heinous crimes should not benefit financially from them after their release—or even, as sometimes happens, while they are still in prison. However, consistent with that view, we in this House must do everything possible to produce legislation that is effective and workable. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed out, we have so much evidence from history that, where complex legislation is concerned, good intentions are not enough. While our stomachs may churn at the thought of villains parading around making profits from accounts of their misdeeds, we must ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, the legislation is proportionate, clear and workable. We must also enshrine a belief in the possibility of sincere redemption and rehabilitation. That is why it is so important that the legislation does not gag anyone. The great impresario, PT Barnum, once famously observed that no one went broke underestimating public taste. Dismaying though we may find that fact, there is a certain public appetite for the kind of material that we are discussing. None the less, this Government have a certain penchant for banning things and the burden of proof must always be firmly on those who seek the ban. Simply finding something distasteful is not reason enough to ban it. Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, we are walking in a legal minefield. To the left of us is the Government’s Human Rights Act and to the right of us is our consideration of restraint of trade and so on. Presumably as a consequence of that dangerous landscape, the legislation before us proposes to give the courts considerable flexibility. That was the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in summing up the debate. A later group of amendments seeks to bring additional flexibility and clarity. Indeed, if the Minister says that he will carefully consider all these points and think again, it may not be necessary to move the amendments. Of course, this is not the first occasion since 1997 when the House has had to weigh its long-standing belief in freedom of speech against other public interest considerations. Famously, I recall that in combination with the noble Lord and other noble Lords, we significantly watered down the Government’s Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. More recently we have also supported my noble friend Lord Waddington in his amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill. Our intention, our probing amendments and the points we are making are all designed to ensure that the Government’s plans are workable. We know that doubts have been raised about the viability of the proposals—they were set out in the letter in this morning's Guardian quoted by the noble Lord—but at present we would not support the removal of these clauses from the Bill. We are content with the principle but we will want to examine our view carefully in response to what the Minister says in reply to this debate. Of course, we shall consider his comments and reflect over the summer and I am sure that we shall return to this matter on Report.