Report stage in the Lords
- Quote
- My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have every intention of withdrawing the amendment at the end of the debate, which I hope may be short or even non-existent. I shall try to explain in a few words why I intend to take this course. These amendments would establish a statutory framework for regulating damages-based agreements. They are not currently permitted in court proceedings and these amendments do not seek to change this. These agreements are, however, commonly used by solicitors and claims managers in some tribunal proceedings, primarily proceedings before the employment tribunal. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for taking the time yesterday to discuss with my officials his and other noble Lords’ concerns. As a consequence, I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment in due course. The primary intention of the amendments is to ensure consumer protection of claimants. We know from recent research that a significant number of claimants in employment cases who sign up to a damages-based agreement are not given proper information by their representatives. This lack of information covers alternative funding which may be available, such as through a trade union or a legal expenses insurance policy. Claimants are also not fully informed about the costs, such as experts’ and counsels’ fees, which they may nevertheless have to pay—notwithstanding that they have signed a no-win no-fee agreement. It is right to legislate to introduce regulation to protect consumers. I understand that some noble Lords were concerned at the extent of the amendments as drafted. We are listening to those concerns, and propose to withdraw or not move these amendments at this stage, with a view to bringing back at Third Reading redrafted amendments, which will be narrower in scope and limited to the regulation of damages-based agreements in respect of employment claims which may go to the employment tribunal. I hope in this way that we can meet the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords, while ensuring from the outset the consumer protection of vulnerable claimants in employment cases. I beg to move.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the course that he has taken. We have shared the concerns to which he referred and consider that the proposals as currently drafted are wide and could capture areas which the Government would not wish to. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has taken a leading part in dealing with this matter and I hope that when we see the redrawn clauses our concerns will be met. I am pleased to note, for example, that the Minister says that damages-based agreements will be restricted to the proceedings in employment tribunals. That is important. I shall also look for whether the concerns have been met of bodies that are not subject to any form of statutory regulation and which deal with third-party claims.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I welcome the comments of the Minister. I, too, was concerned and had discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I agreed with the points that he made that the amendment would have an effect much wider than the one that the Minister outlined. We are all aware of a timely review of costs conducted by Lord Justice Jackson, which has been welcomed on all sides of the House. Will the Minister consider not taking this matter further until the report has been received and carefully considered—as his ministerial colleagues have indicated that it will be? In the light of the concerns, and as the review is still under way—I understand that it will be completed shortly—we urge the Government to hold on until the report is published; and, if they are minded to bring the matter back, we will consider it in the light of the review and following wider consultation. These are important areas where we must proceed step by step to ensure the maximum level of consumer protection.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BachLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we need to legislate urgently on this and will bring back amendments at Third Reading, which I hope to share with noble Lords in good time. We will see where we go from there. The suitable course now is for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BorrieLabour- Quote
- My Lords, together with other noble Lords whose names are appended to several amendments of the same kind, I tabled these amendments to remove Part 7 altogether from the Bill. We were not satisfied with the Government’s response to similar amendments that were tabled in Committee. We continued to be concerned that the Government’s proposals to enable court proceedings to be brought to recover royalties and fees earned by criminals from books, articles, films et cetera were not a proportionate response to a pressing social need. Soon after we tabled the amendments on Report, the Government tabled amendments to modify their proposals in Part 7. First, they seek to reduce the scope of their proposals by confining them to indictable offences. Secondly, they seek to remove the test of offensiveness to the general public from considerations to be taken into account by the court when an exploitation proceeds order is sought. What remains for consideration by the court, if the Government’s amendments are accepted, is any offensiveness to the victim or the victim’s family from the offender receiving payments from a book, article et cetera. The amendments proposed by the Government are welcome, particularly because proceedings could not now be based on a media-led populist appeal to public outrage. All along, the Government have said that the new provisions would be exercised only sparingly. In the light of that assertion, and the amendments now proposed by the Government, noble Lords are entitled to ask: why seek the new powers at all? They ignore existing powers to deal with criminal memoirs and necessarily involve limitations on freedom of expression. Therefore, they are doubtfully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights—a matter on which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will speak. These proposals introduce a large discretionary power for the Attorney-General and, if a court action is brought, discretion for the judge. This must leave anyone acting as an adviser to a potential author, and indeed the author himself or herself, in a state of considerable uncertainty as to whether the law would apply. The Government’s answer is that sometimes real pain is caused to the victim or the victim’s family from the offender being able to profit by exploiting his offence for personal gain. But these proposals are bound to have what I call a chilling effect on any attempt by an offender to express himself, including publications or artistic work that may of course be very helpful in assisting his rehabilitation. It is not as though our present law on criminal memoirs is non-existent. There is the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the full implications of which have not yet been pursued sufficiently to see its advantage in extreme cases. The prison rules, enabling confiscation of memoirs by anyone serving a prison sentence, were upheld by the Court of Appeal in the case of Dennis Nilsen as being in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. Because Dennis Nilsen is serving a life tariff—he has already served 26 years in prison—there will never be a time when the Government’s proposals could apply in his case. He will never be a free man able freely to engage in publishing memoirs. The same point could be made about Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, who is also serving a full life tariff. Then there are cases at the other end of the spectrum where there are no obvious victims whose outrage could form the basis for an exploitation proceeds order. In the recent case, which your Lordships may have read about during the Summer Recess, John Darwin the canoeist faked his own death so that he and his wife could live in Panama on insurance payouts. He profited from newspaper articles and was given a jail sentence of eight years for fraud. It seems that the proposed legislation can hardly apply to what is sometimes called a victimless crime. When you take all these things into account, surely the Government have a real question to answer. What is the value, use and worth of Part 7 of the Bill, with its 15 pages of proposed legislation? Part 7 can achieve very little for the victims of crime in whose name it is promoted, but it could have a number of damaging consequences, and it is doubtfully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord SoleyLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I understand fully where the Government are coming from on this, and I am sympathetic to anything that tries to stop the distress caused by some of these publications to victims of crime and their close friends and families. As the Minister has already discovered, the problem is in the detail of how to do it without slipping into undesirable censorship. I make the point in passing that if we had a similar rule for newspapers publicising these sorts of crimes, most of the articles would not be published. After looking at yesterday’s reporting of the poor 17 year-old girl who was killed as a result of an internet connection, one could well argue, as I suspect some of her friends and family may, that the detail and description given in the articles was undesirable and unacceptable. Of course, newspapers profit from that, so there is a delicate line here.
- Time
- 11:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Lester of Herne HillNon-affiliated- Quote
- My Lords, my name is attached to the amendments, and I have tabled a couple of my own, Amendments 106A and 107A. I shall concentrate on why I consider that the Bill is not fit for purpose because Part 7 does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Before I do that, perhaps I may say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has just said. The concerns that he expressed are very important and place this House in something of a dilemma, because we are faced today with the problem that Part 7 was not properly debated in the other place—which is a matter of great regret. We are the scrutineers and the revising Chamber, and that, plainly, Part 7 as it stands is not satisfactory. Somehow we need to try to stimulate the Government to reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and others have said. First, I thank the Minister and his advisers for having met the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and me to discuss the possibilities of Amendments 106A and 107A, which I tabled in the hope—foolish optimist that I am—that there might be some way of making Part 7 convention-compliant. I am grateful for that. One of the points that Her Majesty's Official Opposition make in their scepticism about aspects of the Human Rights Act is that it does not allow Parliament to do its job sufficiently and leaves too much to the courts to repair legislation enacted by us. I have some sympathy with that, even though I think that I am one of the architects of the Human Rights Act. It has come to be seen as an easy get-out for Governments, who can simply say, “The courts have an obligation to read and give effect to legislation if they possibly can to make it convention-compliant, so it does not really matter if the legislation enacted does not really get it right on its face”. One of the attractive points made by the Opposition is that it is really important for Parliament to do the best it can to pass legislation that is fit for purpose in being convention-compliant. Yesterday evening, in a short debate on Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, perfectly correctly referred to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has held that Article 10(1) of the convention, the free speech guarantee, applies, “not only to ideas that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb”.—[Official Report, 28/10/09; col. 1190.] That is the starting point for Article 10. There is a right to freedom of expression which can be interfered with only where there is legal certainty and necessity—proportionality. I am sure that that is common ground and that Ministers would not dissent from that basic position. There is also the right to property, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions in Article 1 of protocol 1. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, although they do not explain why the Government think that the provisions are convention-compliant, repeat the fact that they think that they are convention-compliant. I do not understand how a Minister could have been advised to come to that view. In the first place, the criteria in the Bill, which the court will be expected to exercise, are not only incommensurable—you cannot weigh one properly against the other for the reasons explained in our previous debate—but they are so vague, even without the “offence to the public” provision, which will now happily be removed if Part 7 stands, as to have the chilling effect to which the noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Borrie, have referred. Therefore, the first vice in these provisions is that they are vague and lack legal certainty. That would be quite enough to cause the European Court of Human Rights to say that they are in breach of Article 10. Secondly, they also sweep too broadly; they are disproportionate. The Minister will no doubt say in his reply that all that may be, but it is for the judge to make sure under the Human Rights Act that the provisions of Part 7 can be read and given effect in a way that cures the vices of legal uncertainty and overbreadth. The courts cannot cure the vice of lack of legal certainty. That vice can be corrected only by Parliament. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, has repeatedly pointed out, it is quite wrong to use the Human Rights Act, which I strongly favour, as a substitute for proper legislation. The safeguards have to be in the Bill. In Amendment 106, especially, and Amendment 107A, I have endeavoured, in a rather pathetic way, to find some way of writing something into the Bill, not very satisfactorily, that might deal with this. Obviously, the Minister will wish to explain whether he is willing to accept that or something very similar to it. It is important that we know that. It is also important to know whether there is any Strasbourg case that Ministers can point to in this debate that supports their belief that this satisfies either legal certainty or proportionality in the context we are talking about. I know of no basis in Strasbourg case law that could possibly support a view that these provisions as they stand are convention- compliant. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us because the legal advice he will have received about why it is compatible will surely have pointed to whether there are any Strasbourg cases—I bet there are not—and I reserve the right, if I may, having heard that, to reply to him later in the debate. I hope that when the Official Opposition come to decide what to do they will join those of us who want to get legislation passed that is fit for purpose and not leave it to the courts to give a declaration of incompatibility in future or to try to rewrite the statute instead of us having done so.
- Time
- 12:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Rendell of BaberghLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. I believe I am the only professional writer—that is, one who lives solely by her writing—to have spoken during the course of the Bill, and therefore what I have to say may be of some help. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Borrie cited memoirs by Ian Brady, Mary Bell and Dennis Nilsen—he mentioned him again this morning—and went on to speak of the prison diaries of a former Member of Parliament and of a fellow Member of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, spoke of Silver Threads by John Williams and John Hoskison's Inside: One Man's Experience of Prison. Perhaps, though, the most famous and distinguished example of a criminal whose memoirs, novels and plays can be said to stem entirely from his experience of crime and imprisonment is the French author Jean Genet, who has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Soley. Genet, who was born in 1910, was a social outcast who, as a novelist, transformed erotic and even obscene subjects into what has been called a poetic vision of the world. He began his life of crime as a child. His mother abandoned him to the care of the assistance publique. He lived in state institutions and spent five years in the notorious reform school at Mettray. There he lived through the degrading experiences that were later described in his novel, Miracle of the Rose, in which he pondered the meaning of imprisonment. After deserting from the Foreign Legion, he wandered around Europe, to be charged in various countries with vagrancy, theft, and homosexuality, which was then a crime. Here it may be apposite to say that Genet’s obscene or pornographic work is never gratuitous or designed to excite or titillate. Much of it explores man’s solitude and the meaning of shame and abjection.
- Time
- 12:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness SternCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I, too, have added my name to the amendment. I should like to say how grateful I am to all those involved in trying to deal with this part of the Bill who have taken it so seriously, and to outside organisations, such as English PEN and the Howard League for Penal Reform, which have worked hard to set out and explain to the wider world why this is such a flawed proposal. We had a fair amount of time between Committee and Report, so I had a chance to try to get a little nearer to the bottom of how this very large piece of law, which in theory covers hundreds of thousands of people—all those with a conviction for an indictable offence and with a vast range of artistic expression—came into anyone’s mind. Why did the Government want to put this into the Bill? I am aware that there were consultations here and in Scotland, but it is clear that very small numbers responded. Most people who work in offender rehabilitation have never heard of these consultations, although presumably that was their fault because they would have been on a website somewhere. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his reply to my Written Question during the recess. He told me that there were 24 responses to the consultation, including two from victims’ organisations, not including Victim Support, and one from a relative of a crime victim. I got a clue about from where this might have come from reading the equivalent Scottish documentation and I thank the Minister for the information about Scotland included in his letter of 14 October to those who had spoken in Committee. The Scottish material talks about preventing “defamation of murder victims”. I began to see that a sensible germ of an idea was at the basis of all this. It is clear that defamation of murder victims by perpetrators would cause enormous distress and may call for a remedy. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made that point very helpfully. However, it is not at all clear how we got from murder victims to all indictable offences and from books to all forms of artistic expression. When confronted with one or two bad examples of offensive behaviour, the Government have a tendency to look for a new law that aims to prevent it and stretches more widely to encompass a huge range of behaviour. But this measure must be the most dramatic example of that genre—if I can use that word. In his letter of 14 October, if I understand him correctly, the Minister says, as consolation, that the scheme does not prevent publication of any material. It prevents only the author keeping the money earned by it. The letter suggests that the books I mentioned by ex-prisoners give valuable insights into imprisonment and prison reform and that they could still be published, but that the authors would not be able to keep the money they made. From a Government who are committed to offender rehabilitation, this approach is absurd. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, is one of the most well known writers in the world. She has explained the importance of writing for rehabilitation better than many of us could. Writing, painting and making films are all better activities for society than violence, robbery and theft. We should welcome such rehabilitation and not take away the lawfully earned money of the rehabilitated.
- Time
- 12:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord RamsbothamCrossbench- Quote
- I should declare an interest as president of the Arts Alliance and former chairman of the Koestler Trust. Has the Minister or any Minister from the Ministry of Justice been across the river to the South Bank to see this year’s Koestler exhibition of art by offenders, an exhibition curated by six women offenders on release from Downview prison? It is a quite outstanding display which demonstrates the value of the arts in the rehabilitation of offenders. The arts do not necessarily contribute to the prevention of reoffending as such but, by encouraging and developing the self-esteem of the person engaged in the activity, they encourage them to become involved in the education, training and work education that may lead to their being able to live a law-abiding and useful life. They therefore have a very pertinent part to play in encouraging the development of offenders. I strongly support these amendments because all the members of the Arts Alliance—which consists of more than 500 voluntary organisations involved in all aspects of the arts and in bringing the arts to offenders, whether in prisons, psychiatric hospitals or probation areas—are extremely alarmed about the implications of this legislation. The impact has not been properly thought through. As the small print of the Bill reveals, it could have an impact on organisations that are involved in the delivery of arts to offenders—which is part of protecting the public. My strong recommendation, therefore, is that this whole part of the Bill should be withdrawn and rethought because it really is a sledgehammer to crack a small nut. I believe that the nut can be cracked in a much more effective way.
- Time
- 12:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness McIntosh of HudnallLabour- Quote
- I apologise for not having contributed to the debate in Committee and therefore coming to the argument very late. To begin, may I say how strongly I agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and other speakers thus far, including my noble friend Lord Soley? I do not pretend to have even a fragment of the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the matter of the human rights implications of the proposal, so I neither can nor should address it, but what I would like the Minister to explain is this. In what way will the legislation address the harm that it seeks to redress? Perhaps I have misunderstood it, but the legislation addresses only those circumstances in which prisoners or ex-offenders are paid for the work they produce. It seems possible, at least in principle, that someone could publish work that has the capacity to offend or distress victims or their families and not be paid for it, but the distress and harm would be exactly as if the writer had been paid. I cannot see how the linking of distress and harm to victims and their families—which is something we certainly should be concerned about—with payment in any way seriously allows the mitigation of that harm to be achieved. This proposed legislation falls at the first hurdle that must be the test of any legislation, which is that it does what it sets out to do. When the Minister comes to reply, could he address that issue?
- Time
- 12:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lengthy letter of 14 October, which sets out in greater detail the Government’s thinking on this issue. However, having read it and listened to the powerful comments and questions put by Members of your Lordships’ House today, I think that the Government should take away and rethink the set of clauses dealing with this issue. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, is powerful because the question of the trigger is the essential one, but it is far from clear in the Bill. Perhaps I may cite the Minister’s letter where he talks about seeking the consent of the Attorney-General, who will weigh up matters of public interest. Although the Government have now tabled an amendment to address the issue of public distaste, the Attorney-General will nevertheless have to weigh up something when a case is put before her. The Minister then goes on to talk about how the court will have, “wide discretion as to whether or not to impose an order, taking account of a number of factors”. Lengthy arguments will arise in court where offenders will no doubt have great difficulty representing themselves—we have not touched on this issue—but what it comes down to is the chilling effect spoken about by many noble Lords. The Minister’s letter does not give any sound examples of what drove the Government to introduce this provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked why that is so, but none of the examples quoted in the four pages of the Minister’s letter really answers the question. The Minister will recall that he quoted the case of Nick Leeson. That, as the noble Lord mentioned, is clearly a victimless crime for the purposes of this Bill. If that case informed some of the thinking behind these clauses, that might explain why these clauses are so inadequate to deal with the problem which the Government are struggling to address.
- Time
- 12:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord HenleyConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I hesitate to interpose myself between the Government Front Bench and their Back Benches or, for that matter, noble Lords from the rest of the House, who do not seem to like what the Government are attempting to do. I shall briefly set out the Opposition’s point. We accept that people who have committed awful crimes should not be allowed to profit from that crime by selling their story, so there is some merit in what the Government propose. We also note, and this is relevant in this House, that it is a matter that was promised in their manifesto at the last election. The Minister nods. Having said that, it is also important to remember the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that Part 7 was hardly discussed in another place. It is unfortunate, when a new crime—and this is a new crime—or a new procedure is being added to the statute book, if these matters are not properly discussed in another place as well as in this House. I hope that the Minister can comment on that. It is obviously rather late in the day for that to be rectified, but procedures are such that the Government should ensure that these matters are properly discussed. In some respects we are slightly more supportive of the Government. We note that nothing in these provisions actually prevents publication. We do not think that there is an infringement of free speech. In fact, free speech is not the issue; we are talking about paid speech. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will correct me if I am wrong on this, but there is no human right to be paid for saying or writing what you wish. The clauses in the Bill allow an application to be made for profits or benefits to be confiscated. A court may hear an application for an order—
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lester of Herne HillNon-affiliated
- Quote
- I think the noble Lord was asking me to respond, in a way. The answer is that it is not just the right to communicate with the public; any impediment—for example, a tax on free speech, newsprint or costs—or any other burden upon free speech implicates Article 10. That is accepted in the Explanatory Notes. I think the Government will accept that there is an issue under Article 10 of the convention, as well as on the right to property.
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- It is my own fault for offering an opening to the noble Lord, and I will try to restrain myself from doing that in future. I think the Minister will accept that it is still possible to publish; there is just the impediment that he referred to that the individual cannot be paid for it. He might remember what Dr Johnson said about people not writing for money, which has some bearing on that. If he does not know the quotation, I think the great doctor said, “No one but a blockhead ever wrote but for money”. I can have that corrected if I have got it slightly wrong. A court may hear an application for an order only if it has been authorised by the Attorney-General. We have voiced doubts at times about the Government’s proposals, but we accept that checks, balances and safeguards are built into the process. It is not simply a grabbing exercise but what we trust could be a carefully targeted system that would deny offenders convicted of some of the worst crimes the opportunity to profit from their misdeeds. Having said that, we await assurances from the Government on a number of points. Clearly there are people who have reformed or are reforming and who make a positive virtue out of their past offences. An ex-convict who draws on his experiences to make critiques of penal policy, or who writes about their experiences as a warning to others, should not, under any reading of these clauses, be swooped on by the enforcement authorities. When determining the application, the court will be mindful of such requirements in Clause 151(3). We have asked the Minister to confirm that. We think that these orders should be applicable only in the case of the most serious offences. Again, we would like to have some confirmation to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has proposed Amendments 106A and 107A, which would put in the Bill a direct reference to the convention rights. No doubt the noble Lord might intervene again, but while he has made a good point, in our view it is an unnecessary one; as I understand it, the courts have to make their decisions in the light of the convention in all cases. His amendments are therefore unnecessary. It is clear to the Government that there is significant opposition to the clauses in the Bill. However, we have endorsed the principle behind them, and we look now for assurances from the Government to the House that they have struck the right balance between protecting the right to free speech and the rights of victims and their families. For that reason, we cannot support the amendments but we will leave it to others in this House to decide what they wish to do with them. We want further assurances from the Government.
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TunnicliffeLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the only support I got in the whole debate. I thank all noble Lords for this extensive debate on this interesting area. We have not changed our view that it is wrong for a criminal to cash in by exploiting the story of his or her crime, especially in cases where the offence has already inflicted immense suffering on victims and their families. We felt so strongly on this point of principle that we included a commitment to legislate in this area in the Labour Party’s 2005 election manifesto. Earlier this month I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, giving details about those offenders who had prompted public debate after receiving payment for material about their crimes. There are several more, including the Ian Huntleys of this world, who have reportedly written material that has not yet been published. I do not intend to go over each case cited in my letter, but one thing is clear: offenders will continue to benefit in the future from publishing material about their crimes if we do not take this opportunity to do something about it. My noble friend Lord Borrie has argued that the scheme is not worth while because it will rarely be used. It is, of course, hard to predict precisely how many cases there will be each year. We suggested a figure of two a year in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill; this was on the basis of past cases that have caused concern. However, in some years there could be a greater or smaller number. Even if the scheme is rarely used, it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to this problem. The fact that the scheme may be used in only a small number of cases is no reason for saying that people who cash in on their crimes should be outside the reach of the courts. My noble friend also cited the existence of the prison rules and existing legislation on confiscation as a reason for not introducing these provisions. I recognise that the prison rules provide some degree of protection, but history shows that they cannot fully address the problem. Crucially, prison rules bite only when an offender is in prison. As to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, this was not designed with criminal memoirs in mind and its potential application to such cases is doubtful. Even if the Act could be utilised, confiscation orders are imposed at the time a person is convicted, whereas criminal memoirs are often published months or years after the conviction. I turn now to some of the other criticisms that have been levelled at our scheme in recent weeks. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and some organisations think the scheme will have a “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of speech and might damage an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. Let me be clear that the scheme does not prevent anyone from writing or publishing anything. If offenders want to write and publish material to develop their skills, they can continue to do so. Indeed, we recognise that the natural outflow of expression in print can greatly aid rehabilitation. All we are saying is that if offenders profit from accounts of heinous crimes, an action which can cause great distress to surviving victims and bereaved families, the courts should have the power to order them to pay back the proceeds.
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lester of Herne HillNon-affiliated
- Quote
- As I understand the Minister, it is the intention that these provisions should have a chilling effect by deterring the Ian Huntleys, for the reasons that Dr Johnson gave. Are they not to deter people by depriving them of the profits from publishing material considered by the Government to be undesirable and of no value?
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- There is a sense of chilling in what we are doing, for the most heinous crimes and within the context of the Act, which, as I shall go on to explain, will take account of all proper issues, particularly proportionality and the narrowing of the crime.
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness SternCrossbench
- Quote
- While the Minister is still on this part of his speech, could he address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh? As I understand it, the Government are of the view that what the victim of a serious crime minds, if something is written about it, is not that it is written about and that is published and many people read it but that the person gets money for it. I understand that it is the Government’s view that once that money is taken away, the victim no longer suffers from the hurt and distress of having it published. Have I understood that right?
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- I was going to come to that point—but, to answer it now, we believe that the publication can cause offence to victims and friends, but we think that it would be a step too far—and I am sure that noble Lords would descend on us like a ton of bricks—simply to ban publication. We believe that what is particularly offensive to victims, and to families and friends of those victims, is that the criminal is able to profit from his crime by subsequent publication. We have looked to all sorts of things to make this reasonable and fair, but we see the act of profit as particularly and excessively offensive. We believe that we could not possibly address the simple act of publication, because it would go too far the other way. I am sure that all noble Lords in this House would say that it would, and that it would interfere with freedom of speech. When an application for an order is made, the court will have a wide discretion in deciding whether to make an order and setting the amount that the offender has to repay. It will consider a number of factors before deciding whether to impose an order and, if so, the amount. These include whether details about the offence are central or integral to the publication as a whole; the social, cultural or educational value of the publication; the extent to which the material is in the public interest; and the degree to which the publication causes offence to victims and their families.
- Time
- 12:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but this is a very important point. What sort of criteria will the judge have to decide on the educational value, for example? We have referred several times during this debate to the book Cries Unheard, which was of immense value in showing what might lead a child to such a crime. It has a readership among social workers and all sorts of people, which has been very valuable. What criteria will the Government suggest form the basis of that judgment?
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- It will be for the courts to decide how to use these clauses. We believe that the courts are quite capable of doing so. It is for the judgment of the House whether it thinks that courts are that capable, but we think that they are and that not only the criteria in the Bill but also the general duties of courts under the Human Rights Act will lead them to sensible decisions in any case that comes in front of them. I am aware of Amendments 106A and 107A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which seek to amend the factors that a court has to consider before imposing an order. The amendments have the effect of explicitly requiring the courts to have regard to the right to freedom of expression and peaceful enjoyment of property and the extent to which the imposition of an order is a proportionate interference with those rights. We have considered his proposals carefully, but we do not believe that it is right to amend the scheme in that way. We have already set out clearly in the Explanatory Notes our firm view that the scheme complies with the convention rights. As noble Lords will know, any interference with the right to freedom of expression is justified under the convention if it is in accordance with law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim—in this case the protection of the rights of others and the protection of morals—and necessary in democratic society—the latter term referring to there being a pressing social need for the interference—and that the means employed are proportionate to the legitimate aims being pursued. Interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property is justified under the convention when the interference is in the public interest, subject to conditions provided by law, and is proportionate to the aim pursued. The detailed reasons why any interference with convention rights that may result from the operation of the scheme is fully justified and therefore compatible with the convention are set out in the Explanatory Notes. Any order made applying the scheme set out in the Bill will accordingly be consistent with the convention. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill did not raise any general concerns regarding the scheme. It simply raised one detailed point about Clause 151(3)(f), which is addressed in Amendment 106A, to which I will turn shortly. Noble Lords will also recall that under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act the courts are already required to act compatibly with convention rights and will therefore need to do so when applying this new scheme. The courts will not impose an order if to do so would in fact be an unjustifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression or the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. The amendments requiring the courts to consider the convention rights are therefore unnecessary. It is also—
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lester of Herne HillNon-affiliated
- Quote
- I will not interrupt again, but since the noble Lord is dealing with—
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- I must remind noble Lords that this applies not only to Report; it applies to interruptions of speeches in any event: “A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification”. That is what the noble Lord is entitled to do, but lengthy or frequent interruptions may not be made, even with the consent of the Member speaking. Of course, the noble Lord should ask his question if it is for clarification, but if it is any more than that, such as a debate, this is not the appropriate time for it.
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lester of Herne HillNon-affiliated
- Quote
- I am grateful to be reminded of what I know already. I have not yet asked my question, but the Minister was explaining why my amendments are unnecessary and why the convention rights are secure. I rose because I asked before for case law of any kind on which the Government rely to show that these provisions, in this context, are compatible with the legal certainty and proportionality—not general case law, but specific case law. Does the Minister have those, please?
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- 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 was 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 were 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, whom 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.
- Time
- 12:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BorrieLabour
- Quote
- 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.
- Time
- 13:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, Amendment 117A moves us on to the issue of police retention of photographs, a matter on which I tabled an amendment in Committee. We had a lively debate in Committee. I was encouraged to return to the issue by the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Henley, who reminded us that this is only part of the wider issue of the retention of DNA, and the regime that we need so that innocent individuals do not have all sorts of information, including photographs, retained inappropriately. Since Committee stage in July, the Guardian has this week carried out quite a lot of investigation into the scale of the retention of photographs. We were very surprised. We knew that there was a problem, but we had not realised that the sheer scale was as great as that uncovered by the Guardian. In Committee the Minister gave his main reason for rejecting the amendment. He said: “We are not convinced that the codes of practice are the appropriate vehicle for governing retention of all photographs taken by the police”.—[Official Report, 21/7/09; col. 1574.] I must ask him again: what is the appropriate vehicle? The PACE codes govern the retention of all evidence collected, of which photographs are one example, so there could be no more appropriate place than the PACE codes. Secondly, there is still the problem that there seems to be no statutory accountability of the three national police units that are responsible for the policing of domestic extremism, as they call it. We would call it the right to protest and demonstrate. The very unfortunate terminology of “domestic extremism” being applied to innocent people who do nothing more than go on a protest is a move that must be strongly resisted. It is only on the basis that they attend protests that such people are photographed. There is a very serious issue here, which is why we have returned to it on Report. I know that the Minister will say that we should wait for Denis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to release his national review of the policing of protests. The Minister would be wrong. We do not need a review to know that the photographs of innocent people—people who are not being charged with any offence—should not be retained. For the Minister to quote the review of the policing tactics at protests is simply a red herring. Nor do we need a review to know that the present situation has got so out of control. Anton Setchell, who is in command of ACPO’s domestic extremism unit, apparently said that people who find themselves on the databases, “should not worry at all”. However, people are worried. We have had a number of people listed on the so-called “sus” cards who were very worried about being on the cards, and who were very worried that their children had been photographed. There can be no excuse for the retention of these photographs past the point where police know whether they are going to charge anyone or not or whether any crimes have been committed, other than for the purpose of building up a database of innocent people, which begins to smack of a police surveillance state, of which we are all very wary. I hope that the Minister will have found it in his heart to agree that this amendment has merit. I beg to move.
- Time
- 13:18
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, quite rightly said that I voiced some sympathy for her amendments when she moved them in July. I suggested that she should come back to them. However, I note that the amendment that she has moved today is significantly different from the earlier version. In July she was asking for photographs to be destroyed after a year if they are not being used, while that has now been reduced rather drastically to two weeks. It is possible that the noble Baroness has diluted the strength of her argument by producing quite such a tight timeframe. Nevertheless, the Minister, back in July, made a suggestion that a better method than amending PACE codes, which was one option, might be to work with ACPO to ensure that all forces are aware of the implications of the judgment in Wood, which found that the taking of photographs at public order events is not unlawful, but that the continuing retention of photographs will generally have to be justified by the existence of clear grounds for suspecting that the individual photographed may have committed an offence at the event in question. We would be interested to hear more details from the Minister about what steps the Government have taken in the months since then to engage with ACPO in this way. For the moment, I think we prefer that approach, and would prefer to hear whether the Government have done anything in that direction, rather than endorsing the noble Baroness’s rather overrestrictive amendment.
- Time
- 13:18
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for raising this important issue again. However, it is an entirely different amendment to the one that she moved in July, and I will come to that in a moment. We share her desire to see these matters addressed, but are clear that the route to ensuring the proper use and retention of photographs is not more legislation, but compliance with the statutory framework that already exists. Without going into the details of the Data Protection Act, or the management of police information guidelines, surely the key principles are that the police, or any public authority, need to be very clear about the purposes and reasons for which they are taking, retaining and storing images of any individual—protester or otherwise—and that they need to justify those reasons. Proposed new article 3.4(a), contained in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment states: “Where an officer takes a photograph or photographs of an individual who has not been arrested, those photographs must be destroyed as soon as possible, but at the latest within 14 days of the day on which the photograph was taken”. Is it seriously being suggested that the law should be changed so that whatever the circumstances, a photograph of someone who has not been arrested within 14 days after the photograph was taken should be destroyed? If so, that would be a fantastic advantage to those who have committed criminal offences—they would be mad not to hide themselves away for 14, or 15, days, because, if they had not been arrested by that stage, the photographs that might well be valuable identification evidence against them would have to be destroyed. It is completely irresponsible to suggest that this amendment be implemented and become the law of the land. Although there is every justification in broad terms for bringing this subject back, this part of the amendment would lead to absolute chaos. Anyone who was guilty of an offence, where the evidence of identification was the photograph, could simply escape justice by avoiding being arrested for 15 days. That would be an absurd piece of law, which would mean that many criminals would escape justice for no good reason at all. The police may need to retain images for longer than 14 days for a variety of reasons: for evidential purposes, of course; the photographs may be of assistance in responding to complaints that are made against them or others; for legal challenges, or to tackle criminal activity. The retention of photographs is important for the complaints system. If we consider the G20 protests, the Independent Police Complaints Commission will have examined images taken by the Metropolitan Police when investigating complaints. Surely the noble Baroness and others would support retention of those images by the police, to ensure that any complaints were properly dealt with, but if the person involved had not been arrested within 14 days, those photographs would have to be destroyed forthwith. That on its own would be a reason for opposing this amendment. While the current legislative framework acknowledges the need for retention, it does not allow police to retain information without valid reason. It comes down to proper guidance and training, to ensuring that officers understand the guidance, and leadership to ensure that officers have this training. ACPO is already committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed in revised guidance that also picks up wider lessons from the reviews into the policing of the G20 protests and the Kingsnorth climate camp, and that training for public order commanders flags the importance of this issue.
- Time
- 13:18
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, the debate was helpful and has narrowed down the issues. I can appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that while in principle the retention for a long time of innocent people’s photographs is unacceptable, he finds 14 days too short a period. I accept the arguments that he and the Minister made whereby there may be a difficultly with 14 days, but the Minister is missing the point. It is one thing when the police are normally taking photographs of a suspect because they have actually committed an offence, but I was talking about all the photographs taken of people who have committed no offence, other than to exercise their right as citizens to take part in a peaceful demonstration. The Minister will no doubt say that some of them may have committed an offence and that the police may need to keep those photographs to identify them, but that is a hypothetical situation. Photographs are taken of vast numbers of innocent people as they enter and leave openly advertised public meetings or demonstrations. These images of people, who it is accepted are innocent, are put on force-wide databases—and that is about chronicling campaigners’ political activities. It is that which is unacceptable. I understand why a period of 14 days has not found favour on the Conservative Front Bench, but an important issue remains. It is so serious that I shall take it away and consider it further. Although I shall not press it today, I do not intend to leave the matter to rest, because the principle here is as important as that regarding the retention of innocent people’s DNA. For that reason, I hope to return to the issue at some point. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- These amendments fill a small gap in the Bill as currently drafted. Noble Lords may be aware that the Government have introduced a new two-tiered structure for the fee which data controllers pay to the Information Commissioner to be registered as a data controller. This replaces the existing flat-fee structure. The notification fee for tier 1 data controllers will remain at £35 while the fee for tier 2 data controllers will be £500. The higher tier will encompass all data controllers with 250 or more members of staff and a turnover of £25.9 million or more, as well as all public authorities with 250 or more members of staff. We estimate that that represents around 5 per cent of all data controllers. The new fee structure will ensure that the Information Commissioner’s Office has the necessary income to fulfil its current and future data protection responsibilities, such as those being brought forward in this Bill. Schedule 19 as drafted contains provisions that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to require data controllers to provide information to the Information Commissioner for the purpose of verifying that the correct annual notification fee is paid. However, this information has to be provided only upon initial registration. There is currently no mechanism to require data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office of changes in circumstance that would place them in another tier. Section 20 of the Data Protection Act 1998 requires data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office of certain relevant changes in circumstance. Amendments 118 and 132 amend Section 20 to enable regulations to be made requiring data controllers to notify the ICO of any changes to their registrable particulars for the purpose of ensuring that the correct annual notification fee is paid. We have drafted the amendment whereby organisations will not need to provide the Information Commissioner’s Office with this information year after year whenever they pay their notification fee. Instead, they will need to provide this information only upon a change of circumstance. This will help to ensure that the bureaucratic burden on data controllers is minimised. I hope that noble Lords will agree to these amendments. I beg to move.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Earl of ErrollCrossbench- Quote
- I welcome the amendment, because I am involved in the data world. I note that the noble Lord said that the change should provide sufficient funds for all the things that the office is meant to do. I am not sure that it will, because we are putting more and more duties on to the Information Commissioner to protect us. He is a bastion of protection for the citizen. I suspect that these fees may need to be looked at again, but this is certainly a move in the right direction.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, these are minor amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that change the date that a youth rehabilitation order comes into effect to the day that it is made. The current legislation delays the date that the order comes into effect until the day after it is made. A delay in the start of the sentence would result in a gap of at least 24 hours between sentence and supervision or monitoring of an offender. During this period, any further offending would not technically constitute a breach. This would mean that a high-risk young offender might be at large overnight or over a weekend, and free to commit further offences with no immediate redress. The amendments in this group address the defect by providing for a youth rehabilitation order to come into force on the day that it is made, or on such later date as the court may specify. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is entirely sensible. I beg to move.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I speak on behalf, and at the request, of my noble friend Lord Waddington. I shall speak also to Amendments 130, 136 and 139. The amendments are consequential to the amendment that my noble friend successfully persuaded the Committee to accept on 9 July of this year. I beg to move.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, we were disappointed that the Committee voted to retain the freedom of expression section in relation to the offence of inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. However, it is important, when the Bill returns to the other place for consideration of the amendments made by this House, that it is properly drafted in all respects. We therefore support the amendments in this group, which are consequential on the removal of the former Clause 61. I make it clear that this does not change our position on the need for the freedom of expression section, and I would not be surprised if the House comes to debate this substantive issue again before long.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I might call his “without prejudice” acceptance of the amendments.
- Time
- 13:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗