---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I think there is a sense that I should respond at this stage. There has been general agreement with the principle behind the Bill and that is to be welcomed. I believe in free speech. If I thought that the clauses which the Government are presenting today would in any way undermine free speech, I would not be standing at the Dispatch Box now. I say that in particular to my noble friend Lord Clarke. Nor do I think they will have a chilling effect on debate. The answer to the question on the necessity of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that the Government believe it is unnecessary. One of the themes throughout the debate on the Bill has been the need to avoid unnecessary legislation. On a literal reading, it is true that the amendment is otiose; it has effect only for the avoidance of doubt and because it says only that discussion is not of itself enough to constitute an offence. That is right. I say to the noble and learned Lord that it is not the opinion that counts. The parameters of the offence remain: it is the use of threatening words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up homophobic hatred that is the test. Some noble Lords have expressed reservations about the use of guidance, but I would argue that where the law is clear—and the way it is drafted makes it absolutely clear—guidance has its appropriate place. I know that noble Lords have expressed concerns about the existing guidance, and guidance is always there to be improved and reviewed in the light of experience. I am not going to comment on the individual cases that noble Lords have raised. The fact is that it is difficult to make hard judgments, and I agree with the noble Baroness that it is hard to legislate on the basis of individual cases as recounted to your Lordships.