Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

The Government have a responsibility to protect the public so that communities and law-abiding citizens can live in peace and security. The police must have the powers they need to meet this responsibility. We have considered this matter—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry, but I am not prepared to give way. I want the House to hear the argument that has gone through the Government.

We have considered this matter at great length—for too long, as the noble Baroness has suggested—and we have reached the firm view that Section 5 should not be reformed. There is insufficient evidence that the removal of the word “insulting” would be beneficial overall. I regret that this decision will not be welcomed by everyone, but I assure the House that it has been given careful consideration. I regret to say that should the noble Lord, Lord Dear, seek to test the opinion of the House, I will urge noble Lords—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The letter is available, no doubt, from the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in full. I suggest that noble Lords read the full text of the letter, not just selective quotations.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

In so far as I understand the term “abusive”—most noble Lords will understand that term—can the Minister define in legal terms the word “insulting”? I have not heard in anything that he said tonight a proper definition of “insulting”. I have heard it defined by the Opposition Front Bench. I shall leave my question at that. Can the Minister define “insulting”?

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I shall respond to one thing. Lest there should be any doubt that I might have been concealing something in the letter from Keir Starmer QC, the DPP, having safely said that you can take “insulting” out of the section, in the last line he says:

“However, I also appreciate there are other policy considerations involved”.

I am bemused. I think that he probably knew something that I did not: that the Government are confused.

I hope that noble Lords on both Front Benches will allow me to say that I am totally confused by their attitude. We have a picture on the one hand that everything is well, despite the fact that the current DPP, the ex-DPP and the ex-Lord Chancellor—a plethora of legal minds in this House—have said that “insulting” can and should come out. The law is not leaving a hole in its place; “abusive” will cover it. There is the safety net of Section 4A, what is left of Section 5 and other legislation. I am deeply disappointed. I had hoped that the Government would support this, with the wide-ranging, voluminous support that there is on all sides of the House, from people who have much better experience than me.

The signals that have been sent tonight—indeed, that have been sent to all of us in the preceding few days—show that many noble Lords have put themselves about very considerably to hear this debate, travelling from the far corners of this country; I do not use those words lightly. We have waited far too long for this. Although I regret to have to say so, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.