Coroners and Justice Bill

I want to work through one or two of the comments made by Members of the Committee and then offer an overview which will allow noble Lords to study the Government’s position carefully over the summer. Essentially, my noble friend Lord Borrie encapsulated what we went on to discuss more widely. His first point, which is significant, was whether this legislation is worth while. Clearly, the Government judge that it is worth while as they have put some considerable efforts into it. It has gone through a significant consultation on which I shall touch later and they have crafted this part of the Bill to address what they think is a problem. The Bill has gone through the other place and received support from all parties. On 10 March 2009, Henry Bellingham said: ""We have supported the Government’s policy of including part 7 on criminal memoirs in the Bill and have taken the view for some time that people who commit heinous crimes should not benefit financially from them after their release or, as in some cases, while they are in prison"." David Howarth, for the Liberal Democrats, said: ""Like the hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to the general principle—indeed, I support it—that people should not benefit from their own wrong. Civil remedies in this area"—" the word "civil" is important— ""are more difficult to obtain than and are not as extensive as some academic commentators would have us believe … On the general point, there is rightly very little sympathy for a criminal’s right to express themselves and"—" this is the key word— ""gain from writing about or exploiting their criminal career"." Edward Garnier said: ""I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point"—" that is David Howarth’s point— ""and the clause under discussion, but the contents of clause 140 may be of use to him. As I understand it, clauses 133 confiscates the profit, but it does not prevent the publication".—[Official Report, Commons, Coroners and Justice Bill Committee, 10/3/09; col. 680.]" My noble friend Lord Borrie and others made the general point about whether it is worth while. We think it is worth while and we think that those in the other place felt it was worth while. My noble friend then moved on to the point which has been raised by a number of noble Lords. I refer to freedom of speech. At one level, freedom of speech is not directly addressed and it is certainly not addressed in a criminal way. This is a civil part of the Bill. It would be enacted under the civil law. The view has been expressed that if you somehow tax speech, you are limiting it. I accept that that is a respectable point of view, although it is but part of the freedom of speech concept. I shall turn to that in a moment.