| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in relation to what the right reverend Prelate says, for the avoidance of doubt there is no promise of such a Bill. There is no prospect of any legislation on this issue in this Parliament. I must make that clear. Such a promise has not been made. It may have been implied in various speeches, but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that, so far as concerns the Government, there will no space for such legislation in this Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, that is helpful clarification. I believe that it intensifies my earlier expressed view that a bird in the hand is worth two promised birds in bushes. Voices from all sides of the House have indicated or anticipated that such a thought-out Bill would be introduced within the next 12 months or so if we did not deal with the issue this evening. I am not totally surprised that that may not be so. Therefore, we may have to wait many years before we ascertain the cash value of some of the promises of support that have been made for such a Bill. Certainly, tonight or in the future we on these Benches would wish to continue to play an active and constructive part in all such deliberations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush depends very much on what the bird does when it is in one's hand. The point that I want to make to the right reverend Prelate
is that those of us who urge caution at this stage are not against legislation but we are against bad legislation. We were advised 48 hours ago, I believe, that we should repose our confidence in the guidelines that were to be brought out. I have them in my hand.Your Lordships will remember the concern expressed that this legislation should not be used maliciously to persecute people who were evincing legitimate religious views and silencing them. We were told that the guidelines were a protection against that. Presumably the complaint by the person who wishes to harass the person making the genuine religious point is made to the police. In paragraph 3.1 of the guidelines we find that:
- XCertain steps can be taken by the police, for example to investigate, to arrest and even to charge, without the need to obtain prior consent from the Attorney General".
I have had the guidelines in my hand only for four or five minutes. They cause me to remember that I was in the Home Office for three years during which time an intelligent section of the staff was busy making a permanent search for an interpretation and legal definition of the word Xreligion". They did so without success. I believe that that has persisted long since. In paragraph 5.6 we find that:
- XSome have speculated whether particular named groups could be said to be defined by a religious belief".
- Xa difficult decision may have to be taken by the Attorney General when deciding whether to grant consent. Such cases will have to be considered on their merits as and when they arise".
I wish to demonstrate only that there may be a myriad of points which we cannot possibly discover in the process we are now going through. That is what I am trying to say to the right reverend Prelate. I am not opposed to the protection that he wants to give, but I do not believe that this is necessarily or, indeed, likely to be the right means.
My final point is that we were given an emotive and touching example by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I believe at Report stage, of an unfortunate Muslim woman who had the horrific experience of being harassed on the grounds of her religion. But I find in paragraph 5.5 that,
- Xvictims of the conduct, against whom the accused intends to stir up hatred or against whom hatred is likely to be stirred up, must be a group defined by their religious or lack of religious belief".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should have much more sympathy for the speech of the right reverend Prelate if, after the Law Commission recommended it many years ago, he and his colleagues had decided that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished. Had that been the position, it would have made it much easier to consider this offence.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I made clear on Report that, if this legislation saw the statute book, we on these Benches would be more than ready to see the disappearance of the law on blasphemy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The difficulty about that is that the Minister indicated just now that he does not anticipate that there will be any further legislation in the foreseeable future.
That leads me to my second point. If there really were an emergency or a pressing need for this legislation in the context of anti-terrorism, one could be perfectly sure that the Government would bring forward legislation early after Christmas in order to deal with it. But that is not the position for the following main reason. In so far as we are dealing with victim-orientated crimes, the existing criminal law is more than adequate to cope, as I believe the Attorney-General recognises. Such crimes are covered by Sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act and various sections of the Protection from Harassment Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicated, the addition of religiously aggravated hatred offences to this Bill will, in some cases, greatly increase, for example, the maximum period of imprisonment. Therefore, as I understand the position, it is only where there is a lack of an individual victim—the Attorney-General gave the leaflet example—that a gap in the criminal law arises.
The third point that I want to raise concerns the guidelines. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for burning the midnight oil and producing the guidelines. I am bound to say with great respect that they beg more questions than they answer. I want to mention two or three examples to begin with, having had them in my hand only for about quarter of an hour. First, the heading to the guidelines includes the words,
- XThe expression of . . . religious beliefs".
If one takes that as a guide, it gives a totally different impression from this document, which uses language which I am bound to say leaves more of a question mark in my mind about whether free speech would be effectively protected than otherwise. That is no criticism of the Attorney-General, who had the impossible task of trying to produce, in a hurry, guidance that will comply with Article 10 of the convention. With great respect, I do not believe that he has been able to do that. That is a further reason for wanting to abide by our previous decision.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, the views of my noble friend the Bishop of Southwark are highly respected among his colleagues within the Church of England, in other denominations and other faiths. However, not all members of the Church of England, other denominations or other faiths agree with everything he says. Nor would he expect them to. He said that we on these Benches are not under any kind of Whip. That is also true.
I agree with many of the comments he made tonight to your Lordships' House. However, listening to the debate and having read the earlier debates in Hansard, it seems to me that, although the intentions of the Government are genuine and well intended, the issues which surround these religious matters are of such sensitivity and complexity that they merit much more careful teasing out.
The Minister made the point that there may be no time in the present Session of Parliament for any such further legislation. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton: better that than for legislation to be rushed through. Although I hesitate to disagree with my colleague on these Benches on this issue, I feel I must vote against the Government.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: My Lords, I do not want to prolong your Lordships' debate, and I do not speak often in your Lordships' House. However, in common with many people outside this House, I have found it frankly incredible that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and Opposition spokesmen should suggest, or appear to suggest, that there may be no connection between incitement to religious hatred and terrorism. The purpose of banning incitement to religious hatred obviously is to afford protection for minority communities in this country, including the Islamic community. However, it is also a matter of fact that over the past decade and more, a number of extremely radical Islamic spokesmen, mainly clerics, have sought refuge in this country as asylum seekers. They have been granted political asylum, notwithstanding the fact—indeed, because of it—that they were wanted for terrorist offences, and still are, in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Those same spokesmen, who in some cases are avowed Al'Qaeda sympathisers, have used our hospitality to preach Holy War; to seek to raise finance for Holy War; and to recruit people for Holy War.
I find that state of affairs deeply disquieting, as do most people outside this House. So, clearly, do our colleagues in the other place. It is because I believe that there is a connection between incitement to religious hatred and terrorism that I intend to support the inclusion of Clause 39 in the Bill. I hope that others will also do so.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page