| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before final decisions are made, will the noble Lord and his colleagues read this House's debates on the Child Support Bill, way back in the 1990s? Will he read the contributions made by the late Earl Russell and the late Lord Houghton, both experts in the matter, who predicted—as, incidentally, did I—the shambles that the Child Support Agency has become?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have looked at some of the debates, but I am happy to look at them again. There is no question that it was a huge undertaking, but it is worth pointing out that the situation before the Child Support Agency was not entirely a happy one. I quote from the White Paper, Children Come First, produced by the previous government, which, commenting on the then court-based system, stated:
"The present system of maintenance is unnecessarily fragmented, uncertain in its results, slow and ineffective".
For all the problems that the Child Support Agency faces, none the less it is producing £600 million a year. We should not underestimate that.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, my noble friend Lord Hunt will repeat a Statement on the welfare reform Green Paper later this afternoon at a convenient time after 3.30 pm.
European Union (Accessions) Bill
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
3.08 pm
Schedule [Hatred against persons on religious grounds]:
Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 1:
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, no offence is committed on the sole ground that a person has read aloud from the scriptures traditionally held sacred by one of the main world religions within a place of worship or at a private meeting."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope very much that this amendment is a model of what a Third Reading amendment should be. It is for the avoidance of doubt and is intended to clear up an uncertainty in the Bill. It does not seek to reopen matters already
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1068
decided. Furthermore, it has been tightly and narrowly drafted with the help of the Public Bill Office. It protects readings from the scriptures held sacred by one or other of the main world religions, provided that the reading takes place inside a place of worship or at a private meeting—for example, in a house or a school. Outdoor meetings are deliberately not covered.
We all know that violent and bloodthirsty passages can be found in many ancient scriptures written hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Today's audiences should use their critical judgment in applying such texts to the actual contemporary circumstances. They should perhaps give greater weight to the injunction to,
At all events, the amendment gives no protection to comments or sermons based on texts. My amendment has the useful, practical purpose of reducing the scope for frivolous or malicious complaints. These could well lead to police investigations of possible incitement to religious hatred and to long considerations of whether to prosecute. On all these grounds, I trust that the amendment will find favour with the Government and with your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very briefly, I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that although the amendment was tabled "for the avoidance of doubt", it is the progenitor of inconsistency. Texts from scriptures of some main religions are manifestations in themselves of religious hatred and exhortations to take unlawful action on that account. What is the intention—and intention now lies at the root of the Bill—of reading out these texts,
if other than to stir up religious hatred? Is there not some general doubt, in any event, whether matters covered by this complex Bill will not find their way on to a website in Holland and tend to exacerbate religious strife in this country? These are questions that have not been considered in the debate. I shall abstain, of course, but I respectfully suggest that they are worthy of consideration.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I perfectly understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has introduced this amendment. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that no offence would be committed under the Bill as amended in Committee in this House or, indeed, under the Bill in its original form. As the House will hear shortly from the Minister, for reasons that she and others may explain, before this Bill finally becomes law it will be in a form which I am confident would make this amendment in any event otiose—as lawyers like to say—or unnecessary.
The amendment also gives rise to some problems, which we do not need to debate now, about what is meant by "the main world religions" and what
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1069
happens to those that are the world's minor religions or other religions. There are problems about discrimination between religions, the definitions of religions and so on. While we all understand the aim of the amendment, I think that I can reassure the House—as one of the architects of what we did in Committee—that it is not necessary for the avoidance of any doubt. If there were any, I am sure that it would be taken care of in other ways before the Bill received Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I have the utmost sympathy with the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The truth is, though, that we have come a very long way towards achieving a balance between protection of people from behaviour motivated by hatred and the preservation of freedom of expression in religious matters.
Over the months, the Government have taken seriously the concerns expressed from many quarters—sometimes perhaps a bit late in the day and maybe even under occasional duress. Nevertheless, in my view, the presently amended form of the Bill before us today paves the way for a satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendment, but I rather pray that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not wish to test the view of the House.
3.15 pm
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I am not entirely clear when and if it will be appropriate to speak about the Bill more generally, picking up the point made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I very much agree with the points that they made. At Second Reading, I made it clear that I did not believe that the measure was compatible with the values of a free and tolerant society and I put my name to the group of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has referred and which, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, cover the issues to which he wants to draw the House's attention this afternoon.
As I understand it, there have been discussions involving my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister of State, and a good deal of common ground has been found. I very much welcome that and hope that it will be brought to fruition. I may be misinformed but I understand that the opposition Front Benches in another place have reservations about the degree of common ground that has been found. If that is so, it is extremely regrettable because there is a big danger of making the best the enemy of the good in this kind of case.
The Bill, as it now exists after amendment in Committee, effectively covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I think it is a much better Bill than the one that came here, yet that was the Government's ideal Bill. The present Bill, even with this common ground established, will no longer be the Government's ideal Bill; it will be their compromise Bill. There are dangers in opposition Members in
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1070
another place seeking to undermine the degree of common ground that has been arrived at and, as I said, making the best the enemy of the good.
Given the political pressures in another place, we do not want the Government suddenly deciding to reintroduce the original Bill rather than accepting and going with what seems to me the fair compromise which has, I understand, been agreed. In my judgment—backed up by the much more expert noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—that compromise would underpin a good outcome and show what the House of Lords is capable of doing in terms not of trying to sink a Bill which is a manifesto commitment but of trying to challenge the Government and revise a Bill in a very constructive way.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |