| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, under the proposals, will rural councils—in particular, sparsely populated councils—finally receive a settlement that ensures that in education, for example, they do not receive hundreds of pounds less in relation
to children than urban areas? Secondly, with this rather blunt instrument of a scorecard, how will the Audit Commission measure an organisation that is set up by a council—a development trust, for example—and which functions effectively, but which delivers all of the goods for the people in that area? How will that be judged? The point raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp would be covered in such a case. People would see something happening as a result of the body that was set up by a council and which was no longer directly owned or managed by it but which was nevertheless beneficial.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness's first point was about whether the financial settlement would ensure that rural areas were treated fairly—those are not quite her words. The answer, as I said in an earlier response, is that we have indicated that the old financial settlement system has gone and that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will share his views on what the new process should be next year—the provisions will come into effect the following year. That issue is for another day, and is not really dealt with in the local government White Paper.
I turn to the question of how the assessments will be made by the Audit Commission. I gave a long answer earlier in which I set out what its assessment methodology will be. Plainly, it will have to take into account the sorts of issues to which the noble Baroness referred. Its methodology will be piloted and developed in consultation with local government and other relevant parts of the public sector to ensure that it is effective and insightful.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, could the Minister clarify the situation regarding capital spending? Councils are currently not allowed to borrow money to build housing, for example. Having listened to the Minister's Statement, it is not clear whether there will be a change and whether councils will be able to borrow money for that purpose. Will he clarify the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the local government White Paper gives local authorities greater freedom to borrow. That borrowing will have to be within prudential limits, which will be set in such a way that only borrowing that they can service can be made.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the White Paper comes out, perhaps providentially, on the same day as four other reports that had been promised on last summer's race riots—if that is what they were—in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The Minister will be well aware that some of the problems in those towns, and in many similar towns in the north of England, are due to the failure and collapse of the housing market, which means that there are very cheap properties that people are not able to modernise or deal with adequately. The White Paper refers briefly to that problem on page 92 in paragraph 5.3. However, a few pages later, on page 98, it suggests that all that the Government are going
to do is to have a review of the HIP system and that nothing will change for two years. Can the Minister give any hope that not only Bradford, Burnley and Oldham but many other towns like them and many other local authorities in the same situation will be able to access greater resources during the next two years in order to help them to begin to tackle those urgent problems before the review takes place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the urgent problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred were those which he raised with me in a question about 10 days ago. That question related in particular to East Lancashire and went way beyond the towns hit by disturbances in the summer of this year.
This paper does not seek to deal with the level of resources for housing; nor am I in a position to make any comment about what will happen with regard to that level of resources in the next spending review. However, as I made plain in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord about 10 days ago, the Government are well aware of the problems of market failure and the extent to which in some parts of the country those problems have contributed to disturbances and, in every case, to significant deprivation.
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
5.11 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 39 [Racial or religious hatred offences: penalties]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 6:
- Page 20, line 42, leave out Xor religious".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the changed structure of Part 5, which now excludes religious hatred offences but retains religiously aggravated offences under Clause 38. This will involve a technical amendment to Section 37(3) of the Public Order Act 1986 and will require the attention of a parliamentary draftsmen in due course if that is acceptable to the Government.
If the new structure were to be acceptable to the Government, it would resolve the essence of the problem with which the House has been concerned. It was identified by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on 15th October. He said that in this country Islam is generally perceived as an Asian religion. Therefore, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to religious hatred against people of Asian origin. That analysis was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at col. 371 of the Official Report for 15th October 2001.
If the record of enforcement of these racial hatred offences under extant law were to be increased from the 47 cases over five years to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred, there would be no need to introduce a new Bill at all. There is a hope that the Government will accept Part 5 as it stands as a fair and reasonable resolution of the problem with which we have been grappling for days, and that they will accept Part 5 as it stands with this consequential amendment and not undo the work of this House as is threatened in the newspapers. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when the Minister comes to reply, I wonder whether he could tell us—this is germane to the amendment—first, how many sentences of more than 18 months' imprisonment have been imposed for racial hatred offences in the 15 years since the Public Order Act 1986 came into force; and, secondly, whether the judiciary has ever complained that the current two-year maximum is too low and fetters its hands. If the answer is no then it appears that the near quadrupling of the maximum sentence to seven years is a public relations gimmick—or Xspin", as we are now meant to call it—designed to give the impression of the smack of firm government.
Do the Government and, indeed, the Opposition, realise what the change to Section 17 of the 1986 Act made in what is presently Clause 36 of this Bill means? It will now be an offence to stir up hatred against any national group anywhere in the world. Thus, if this Bill had been in force exactly 60 years ago—that is, on 11th December 1941, when Britain was fighting for its life against the Axis powers—it would have been an offence, punishable by seven years' imprisonment, to stir up hatred against the Germans or Japanese. Is that what the Government intend? Surely not. Does this not show the dangers of legislating in such haste?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. It gives me the opportunity to return to a point that I raised in Committee concerning the level of penalties. It is proposed to increase that level by a factor of three and a half. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was kind enough to say in Committee that that reflected the wish of the Government to send a strong signal to the courts pointing out the gravity of this type of offence. I accept that, and that is why I withdrew some later amendments. However, a multiple of three and a half seems to be excessive. I should have thought that a multiple of two would be perfectly adequate.
Perhaps I may make one further point. I believe that from now on there will be a need to review the working of the law, both with regard to racial hatred and also, in so far as Clause 38 becomes law, in relation to religiously aggravated offences. No doubt both types of offence convey a kind of theoretical protection. But
I wonder what that is really worth in practice and whether, with the benefit of a review, something better could eventually be produced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure that the level of maximum penalties has much of a deterrent effect when the courts seldom approach the limits which they are given under the statutes. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will know better than I do how the law on religious hatred has been applied in Northern Ireland. He asked a question the other day which elicited the fact that, during the currency of the religious hatred offence on the statute book in Northern Ireland since 1987, there have been four prosecutions and the maximum sentence imposed by the courts has been six months compared with the two-year maximum.
I ventured to draw attention to that the other day—perhaps it was yesterday; I lose track of the time as we discuss this Bill every day—because it seemed to me that it gave the lie to people who alleged at that time that having an offence of religious hatred on the statute book would lead to many frivolous or unfounded prosecutions. It certainly has not done so in Northern Ireland. However, in the context of the current discussion, I have doubts about whether increasing the penalties when the courts have not even nearly approached using the existing penalties would have much of a deterrent effect.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page