Of course I accept that the Publishers Association made strong representation, and I in no way suggested that consultation uniformly agreed with the Government—it did not. From a quick review of the consultation, I think that it was roughly down the middle. Not unsurprisingly, publishing organisations broadly said that they did not like it; and, not unsurprisingly—this is an extremely important point—victims’ organisations looked on it as essential. Any consultation is about a balance. Any Government are charged with taking that balance of view when they bring law forward. As I have said, we believe that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation.
Moving to the freedom of speech point, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, cited the notes to the Act. We recognise that Article 10 could be engaged, but we also note—and I thank him for citing it—that: ""Article 10 is a qualified right and may be subject to restrictions that are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of a legitimate aim … These proposals will be prescribed by law with precision in primary legislation"."
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1553 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:05:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580047
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580047
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580047