| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: I shall be brief. We need to remind ourselves that we live in a largely secular society in which attendance at any form of religious worship is dropping and is at a very low level. That is not to say that moral values influenced by religion are not more prevalent than religious observance.
It is true that since early September there has been an increase in attacks on religious buildings—mosques, synagogues and churches. But they are not widespread across the whole country; they are localised. Therefore, I support the view advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and backed up by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I return to remarks that I made in the debate yesterday. This extremely complex and difficult subject would be far better left to more mature considerations, outside of any emergency context. I went on to say that if the Government will not remove these clauses or split up the Bill, they are likely to do lasting harm which they will come to regret.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I may have to apologise to the Committee because even at this hour of the night I do not have the remotest idea how long my remarks will take. I apologise sincerely for that. However, we find ourselves in a serious difficulty.
When the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms pointed out this remarkable grouping, he said that it is to enable us to have a proper discussion over the method by which we take this matter forward. The noble Lord may not have thought those words through but I read into that—I am open to be corrected of course—that in fact the Government were not absolutely certain whether it was right to take forward Part 5 of the Bill at this time. I may be reading far too much into what the noble Lord said. I am happy for him to tell me that that is so. I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong.
Lord Carter: When we saw this extraordinary grouping, I simply explained to the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Dixon-Smith, that, although on Report we could have an amendment to leave out Part 5, I thought that the intention was to have a general debate on the whole of Part 5. Each clause of the Bill has to be put forward in Committee. The only way to
deal with the matter in Committee was to list the whole business as a debate on clause stand part. I assumed that the Committee would welcome a general debate on the whole of Part 5, hear the Government's response and then decide what to do. It is up to noble Lords to decide how to deal with it but by having this grouping it enables the Committee to have a general debate on the whole of Part 5. That is all.11.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It seems to reveal an uncertainty.
The difficulty is that the grouping seems completely to remove Part 5 from the Bill while at the same time containing amendments of substance, one of which we have proposed, which would attempt to improve the Bill. Although we have done the best we can in the time available, I do not regard that amendment as either the be-all or end-all of what is required in order to make the Bill adequate and sufficient. So we are looking at a general debate as to methodology.
I have a fundamental problem. Having considered the subject with some care, I accept the principle that legislation in this area is desirable. I have no difficulty with that proposition. However, is this provision appropriate as an add-on to the Bill? That is what it is. Except in the most indirect of indirect ways, I cannot find any linkage between this part of the Bill and anything to do with anti-terrorism. Similarly, I cannot find anything that relates it to security or national security. I would resent the suggestion that it had anything to do with crime. Those areas are encompassed in the Title of the Bill. Therefore we have a difficulty.
I have already described this as a premature Bill. I do not doubt the Government's honour and intentions in bringing the measure forward. I am sure that it was done for the best of reasons. However, given the timescale in which the Bill has had to be drafted—it is still only 11 weeks since September 11th—and the pressures that there have been throughout that period, one would have to have the gravest doubts about the adequacy and, even more significantly, the depth of any consultation across religious groupings of all sorts. I do not doubt that soundings were taken here and there, but soundings are not consultation.
Another problem is that we are dealing with matters that impinge enormously on the boundaries between freedom of speech and the possibility of it becoming something else. Looking at history, it is thoroughly deplorable that religion of all sorts over the millennia has all too often been hijacked by man for entirely human, and often thoroughly disreputable and dishonourable, purposes. It gives me no satisfaction or pleasure to acknowledge that. As an historian, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows about that subject in far greater depth than I do. We are in danger of going down the same road to a degree if we are not careful.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, speaking in favour of the Bill, made the perhaps inevitable Freudian slip—he was probably not aware of making it—of referring to racial instead of religious
hatred. Most of the motivation of those who in recent times have dealt in a wholly deplorable way with some Muslim communities has been not religious but racial. We need to recognise that.If we are to deal with the subject, we should all be certain that whatever law we end up with must deal equally with each and every religion and, if necessary, those who have no religion. When we go down that road, we begin to impact strongly on the fiercely evangelical branches that exist in almost every religion. Once we start going into that area, we begin to get into great difficulty.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said that we should go ahead with the proposals because they are here and we have the time, but he acknowledged that what we have before us may not be ideal. We have a week in which to draft what is in effect a new Bill, if that is what we are to attempt to do. I am a modest man. I would not attempt to cover such a subject properly in that timescale. I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that we cannot read over from religion into the Public Order Act 1986. It is not as simple as that. Really major effort would be required.
I conclude, sadly, that if we are to go down this road, we no longer have an option. We cannot discuss the detail without great difficulty, and if we come back at Report stage when debate is more constrained, and then at Third Reading when it is even more constrained, we shall not have the time physically to do the work and still less to carry out external consultations that are properly required before dealing with this part of the Bill.
I accept that it is desirable to legislate to try to contain those unfortunate aspects that occasionally reveal themselves in our society as a result of religious prejudice. I make a clear distinction between religious and racial prejudice. We have to be far more careful, study and consult and take far more time than we can possibly give to this subject in the seven days that are left to us before the Government hope to enact the Bill.
When we reach those further stages, there will be only one real option: to strike these clauses from the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he accepts that racial hatred is adequately covered by our present law?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am happy to answer in the affirmative. Of course it is. Indeed, many of the other incitement problems are also covered in other areas of the law.
Lord Hylton: May I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has spoken to his Amendment No. 97? If he has done so, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something about Amendment No. 101.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, illustrates precisely the difficulty that we face. Before I
can speak to that amendment, I have to speak to the Motions on clause stand part. If we were to start on that process, we would have to begin with a Motion from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway which would mean that the amendment would become redundant.
Lord Goldsmith: The sense that I have taken from the debate this evening is that all Members of the Committee who have spoken agree that what we are trying to outlaw in Part 5 is objectionable. The hatred and incitement of hatred of particular groups is to be deplored, should not be condoned and must be outlawed. The disagreement is on how to achieve that and whether to do it in this Bill.
I had understood from the amendments that have been tabled that there were specific points on the drafting of the proposed clauses. We have listened, as we always do, with care and attention to proposals from Members of the Committee to improve the aim that we wish to achieve, on which there seems to be agreement. I am happy to deal with specific problems in the proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not feel it appropriate this evening to explain those amendments, I shall do that in the briefest possible form, simply to indicate what the concerns are.
Lord Avebury: Will the noble and learned Lord make clear that in speaking at this moment he is by no means pre-empting further debate on the remainder of the amendments which have not yet been moved?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page