Coroners and Justice Bill

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I heard from a sedentary position the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) saying, "Not if it is threatening," but the words "of itself" make it quite plain that if it were threatening language in that context, the freedom of speech defence would not be open to the individual concerned. Therefore, his anxiety is misplaced. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, seeing as he is participating in this debate: we have in the past worked together on similar issues regarding religious hatred. One comment that he often made then—indeed, I even remember him conceding in the context of this offence—was that such offences, which the House creates, can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. He may have been the first person to use the words "chilling effect" in the House. I certainly remember them coming first from him. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of evidence, unfortunately, in the context of the Public Order Act 1986, that the offence is having a chilling effect. Its interpretation, based upon a form of political correctness handed down by what is perceived to be the line taken by those in authority, is leading to abuse in a number of circumstances by the police who threaten individuals with prosecution unless they desist from expressing perfectly legitimate views. That causes me great concern, but I am glad to say that that has in no case led to prosecution and that in one case it led to the police subsequently providing an apology for their conduct. Nevertheless, we must bear that point in mind, because the Government intend—I do not think the Minister disagrees with this—the offence to be far more serious, although I accept that the test for it may be different, as she said.