Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive response to the debate. He will have noticed, as I did, that apart from the fairly modest and partial support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, every single person who spoke in the debate was critical of and generally against Part 7 of the Bill. In my view, having listened to the debate, Part 7 is an example of gesture politics. It is a gesture in the direction of victims of crime, for whom we must all have sympathy because the state of anguish and offence that they may feel when an offender profits from a book or article written by him is a serious matter. However, it is no more than a gesture, because under these proposals the victim is not to receive a single penny of any proceeds that the Government will obtain under the new action that will be permitted. The Government admit that the new powers are to be used only rarely. Almost every time that the Minister has referred to these matters in detail, whether privately yesterday or today in this House, he has emphasised how very unusual it would be and in how few cases the proceedings suggested by Part 7 will result in proceeds being recovered. The proceedings which are described in Part 7 are hedged around with restrictions and qualifications, and to some extent that is welcome because it allows for the literary value of publications, and for the general public interest to be observed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has clearly pointed out—and in this House, he has a particular knowledge of this field—the uncertainty of application of these proceedings is too vague, and not proportionate to the mischief that is said to be involved. That is because of the vagueness that, almost inevitably, has to appear in the legislation. To say that the Government are attracted to it may be an exaggeration, but they are still resolute in their desire to have Part 7 on the statute book. The Government are not willing to modify it on the lines helpfully proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, despite their inability, which has been confirmed today, to show that there would be any European case law for the compliance of this part of the Bill, and the things that can take place under it, with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is impossible to summarise the breadth, width and thoughtfulness that went into so many of the speeches that we have heard today, but in one way and another they all say to the Government, "You haven’t got it right, even if there is some basis for this sort of legislation. You should withdraw it". They are unwilling to withdraw it, and I feel that I have to divide the House on this matter. It is not my custom to do that while sitting on the Government Benches, which I have been on for at least as long as the noble Lords on the Front Bench. On this occasion, however, I feel that this has hardly anything to do with party politics but is a matter of principle. I feel that I should ask to divide the House unless, perhaps, the Minister does that the other way around. Division on Amendment 97 Contents 56; Not-Contents 74. Amendment 97 disagreed. Clause 145 : Qualifying offenders Amendment 98 not moved. Clause 146 : Qualifying offenders: service offences Clause 146 : Qualifying offenders: service offences Amendment 99 not moved. Clause 147 : Qualifying offenders: supplementary Clause 147 : Qualifying offenders: supplementary Amendment 100 not moved. Clause 148 : Relevant offences Amendments 101 to 103 Clause 148 : Relevant offences Amendments 101 to 103 Moved by