Coroners and Justice Bill

There is no case law. I believe that that is true for much of the Human Rights Act. That does not mean that courts do not take account of that Act all the time. I am proud to represent a Government that brought in the Human Rights Act and that that Act is impacting on the behaviour of courts and how they set about their business. It is also important to bear in mind that, when deciding whether to impose an order, the courts will naturally balance the various factors that they have to consider in reaching their decision. The need for such a balancing exercise is plain from the clauses, which provide a list of factors to be considered, some of which are likely to tend towards an order being made and others that are not. The court will also be free to take into account any other factors that it considers to be relevant when carrying out that exercise. I now turn to the government amendments. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked me to clarify whether the scheme would truly apply to offenders who exploit information about any offence, regardless of the seriousness of that offence. I can confirm that that is indeed the effect of the current clauses. However, we have been reflecting on this issue over the summer and government Amendments 101, 102, 103 and 112 should help to allay concerns about the breadth of the scheme. Those amendments will narrow the scope of the scheme so that it applies only to offenders who exploit material about serious offences, namely those offences that can be tried on indictment—that is indictable-only offences and offences that are triable either way. It is, after all, people profiting from accounts about serious offences, not low-level summary offences, who are most likely to be of concern. To provide additional reassurance to the House and after extensive consultations, we intend to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to further limit the ambit of the scheme to indictable-only offences. Limiting the scheme to those who exploit material about offences that are triable only on indictment will be a major move on our part. The original scheme in the Bill would have applied to memoirs about any offence. Offences can that can be tried only on indictment form a small proportion of such cases. It would cover only offences at the most grave end of the spectrum such as murder, manslaughter or rape. Noble Lords may also recall that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was concerned about the reference to the "general public" in Clause 151(3)(f). It was suggested that it would be difficult for a court to measure the extent to which the general public is offended by a publication when weighing up whether to impose an exploitation proceeds order. I know that that view is shared by other noble Lords, as it was raised during the debate in Committee on 21 July. On reflection, we think that that is a valid point. Government Amendment 107 therefore deletes the reference to the "general public" from Clause 151. Importantly, however, the reference to the extent to which the victim or family of the victim are offended by a publication will remain. It would be much easier for the court to measure the degree to which victims or family members are affected than it would be to gauge the strength of public feeling. I hope that I have answered the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He brings forward what I called in my previous life the de minimis dilemma. Yes, this provision will relate to only a small number of cases. Nevertheless, our judgment is that those cases are important. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about the case for flexibility. It is quite clear that the court can consider all factors and will reasonably do so. The impact on rehabilitation, the impact on victims and the victim's views are all things that the court should consider, but the key issue about flexibility is addressed by the move that we have made to indictable-only offences. Non-lawyers in the House may not know what that means. Offences that are triable either way include sexual assault, burglary, causing death by careless driving, fraud, membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation and drugs offences. When we bring forward our amendments at Third Reading, none of those offences will be included in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made his case about the Human Rights Act. I thank him for the time that he spent discussing that with us and I am sorry that we have not come to a common understanding. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, made a brilliant speech about a French novelist, who I have never heard of. I cannot possibly judge whether heinous crimes were committed by that novelist or not, but the contribution that she described would be considered by the courts if a parallel situation were to exist. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, suggested that hundreds of thousands of people would be impacted. Our view in the impact statement was two per year. I hope that I answered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, quoted from the letter that I wrote, particularly the Leeson part. She claimed that his was a victimless crime. That would no longer be included under the Third Reading amendments that we intend to introduce. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, started to make a speech in support of us and I hope that as an individual he will support us in the Lobbies. We have now limited the provision to the worst crimes. I cannot bring forward the specific reassurances that he asked for, but I hope that I have answered the issues on the Human Rights Act and that the breadth of the Act allows all sensible things to be taken account of. I hope that we will get support for this provision, the bipartisan nature of which goes back to before the previous election. Michael Howard, the then leader of the Tory party, said: ""We don’t think criminals should benefit from their crimes—society should draw a clear distinction between right and wrong"." Later in the same discussion, he said: ""What I want to see is a presumption against criminals benefiting from their crimes in this way"." As I set out in my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, there was cross-party support in the other place. I am afraid that I cannot be responsible for its conventions. During Committee in the other place in March 2009, Shadow Justice Minister Henry Bellingham stated, ""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"." Despite some misgivings about the finer detail of the Bill, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, David Howarth, stated: ""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 are more difficult to obtain"," and are not as exhaustive, ""as some academic commentators would have us believe".—[Official Report, Commons, Coroners and Justice Bill Committee, 10/3/09; col. 680.]." I hope that I have touched upon all of the points. Finally, I again remind the House that the provisions in this part of the Bill stem from a commitment in the Labour Party’s 2005 election manifesto. The relevant passage reads, ""we will develop new proposals to ensure that criminals are not able to profit from publishing books about their crimes"." I hope that in the light of all I have said, the House will accept the need for these provisions, as modified by the Government amendments, and I invite my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to withdraw their amendments. If they will not, I invite the House to vote against them.