Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that unfortunately I very much agree with the statements made by other noble Lords. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Plant, the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—this is not the right amendment. I reassure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate the concern that has caused him to proceed with tabling the amendment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in the way that he suggests—not least because of the amendments that were made earlier.

As we have said previously, the Bill is about stirring up hatred. It is difficult to see how simply reading from a sacred text would ever, by itself, be considered an action that would stir up hatred. The only circumstances that I can envisage where the reading out of a sacred text could possibly fall within the scope of an offence would be if such a reading were accompanied by actions or words which are already adequately covered by the freedom of expression exemption currently in the Bill at paragraph 29J. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, the architect of these provisions, is therefore quite right in saying that it would be unnecessary, because the Bill exempts matters such as criticism and expressions of antipathy towards a particular religious belief.

When we reach the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I will report to the House, as I undertook to do on Report, the outcome of our strenuous deliberations, which have engaged all Benches—the Bishops' Bench, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves—to try to come to an accommodation. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is seeking to underline the consensus which we all arrived at—that we need to do two things. We need to protect people from the aberrant and quite disastrous effects of religious hatred but, by the same terms, not put any improper restriction on our freedom of speech and of expression. When we come to the next stage, I will seek to outline the Government's response to those issues.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I appreciate the improvements that have already been made to the Bill,
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1071
 
particularly in the matter of intention and freedom of expression. I acknowledge that my amendment may well be deficient as regards definitions. I look forward to hearing the statement that the Minister has promised. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

I should like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the basis on which we propose that the matter should go forward, particularly bearing in mind that, pursuant to the discussion we had on Report, it was hoped that there would be amendments that we could move on Third Reading. That has not proved possible.

At Report, on 8 November, I said that we would continue to try to build a consensus on the Bill that balanced the concerns which many noble Lords had clearly expressed about freedom of expression with a need to produce a viable and effective offence of incitement to religious hatred. It seemed to me then, as I said earlier, and it seems to me now that, in this House, such a consensus does exist: first, that we need to protect people, as I have just indicated; but, secondly, that we also need to protect our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I believe that there is still a possibility that that consensus will be arrived at. However, it has not been possible to bring forward agreed amendments to this House. I confess that that is a source of great regret and acute disappointment to me.

A great deal of thought has been given to how that consensus could be achieved on this Bill. There have been discussions with key Members of this House and another place, not least the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Hunt. I thank them for their diligence and hard work in those efforts. The Government have made considerable efforts to try to meet the concerns expressed. I will leave it to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Hunt, to explain their position on these matters. It is, however, only right and fair that I set out to your Lordships the Government's position during those negotiations. It remains our position.

We are prepared to accept that the incitement to religious hatred offence should be separate from the existing racial offence, and that it should form a new schedule to the Public Order Act 1986. That is, we accept the new architecture. We propose to insert a subjective recklessness test into the offence, clarifying the intent provisions. We will put forward a revised version of the freedom of expression wording for the sake of complete clarity on this issue. It will specifically state that proselytising, discussion, debate and criticism—including the use of abusive and insulting language and ridicule—of religion and religious practices will not be caught by the offence unless a person also intends to stir up hatred against a group of people, or is reckless as to whether it would thereby be
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1072
 
stirred up. We have always contended that that is the Government's intention. Finally, we will be seeking to restore "abusive and insulting" to the words and behaviour that make out the offence. I hope that, given the full package of measures that we are proposing, this will not be something that will cause noble Lords to disagree.

I must again thank noble Lords for their considered contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through this Chamber. I recognise that the concerns expressed arise from a real desire to ensure that the treasured freedoms of this country are not eroded. On these Benches, we have upheld and expressed that desire, so there is consensus on that issue. I am absolutely committed to those aims and to ensuring that we protect our most vulnerable communities from having hatred stirred up against them by those who do not share these values. I thank those on this Bench who have arduously and consistently supported those aims.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as so often during the long life of these proposals, I speak not in anger but in sorrow. I hope this will not be taken as a partisan point, but our starting point for this latest journey was not very promising. I am reminded of the old joke where one man asks another for directions and, after a pause, his interlocutor begins by saying, "Well, you wouldn't want to be starting from here". Unfortunately, Ministers made a fundamental mistake by attempting to amend the Public Order Act 1986 by effectively adding "religious" to "racial" throughout the existing offences. That misjudged attempt to equate religion with race started this entire debate off on the wrong track. It has taken a lot of effort, courage and patience, not least on the part of Ministers, to get the debate on to the right track. I readily pay tribute to Ministers for their willingness to listen and to restructure this fundamental aspect of their original approach.

As the Minister pointed out, as soon as Ministers agreed that the proposed new offence of inciting religious hatred should appear separately as a new schedule to the 1986 Act, the possibility of reaching a consensus was created. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the short debate we have just had on his amendment which reinforces that point. Suddenly, it became possible to fine-tune the religious hatred offence without also reopening the 1986 settlement on racial hatred. At a stroke, a broad consensus here and in another place seemed not only attainable in principle, but tantalisingly close in practice. As we return this rewritten Bill to the other place, I fervently hope that its Members will think again and endorse our view that a person's race and his or her religion are quite different qualities. Race is innate. In a liberal democracy, it must be an article, if not of faith, then surely of the fundamental foundations of our political discourse, that beliefs are a matter of individual choice. Adherence to a faith, belief or set of beliefs is about ideas and should not be elevated in law to a higher plane than any other idea or ideas. That is why
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1073
 
on 25 October this House made its position very clear indeed. The Bill in its original form was overwhelmingly rejected and an amended version was adopted, with support from every part of this House. That, I believe, was the House of Lords at its best, in its traditional role of amending and improving legislation and defending civil liberties. Since then some very important and detailed discussions have taken place.

3.30 pm

I thought it might be helpful if I set out my response to the noble Baroness. Just as Ministers conceded ground and accepted both our amended structure and substantive aspects of the revised Bill, so we on these Benches have moved too. We did so at the outset, by conceding the principle that any such Bill should be passed at all. Although we on these Benches certainly agree that there should be no right to stir up hatred of people, on the whole we continue to believe that the existing law covers this perfectly adequately. That was underlined by the recent travails of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, who was apparently investigated by the Metropolitan Police after expressing negative views about homosexuality.

We really must do everything we can to ensure that this new legislation is not open to abuse. It must not open the floodgates to a mass of frivolous complaints, much wasting of police time and pointless inconvenience and worry for those who express trenchant views about religion. However, as the great Rab Butler once said, politics is the art of the possible.

The Labour Party won the last election and committed itself to legislate in this area—and we all remember the terms of the Labour manifesto. During our meetings with Ministers, I confirm that it soon became clear we were all seeking to achieve the same objective; namely, absolute clarity in the Bill that any new offence should capture the stirring-up of hatred against people and not beliefs or practices. Throughout there was a lot of good will on all sides. Shortly before Christmas, it seemed that that good will might manifest itself in a more concrete form in the shape of an agreement on the Bill. Alas that did not prove possible. The concessions offered by Ministers were by no means perfect, but they were a major improvement on the original Bill. I should like to pay tribute to everyone involved because there was no shortage of constructive contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I believe strongly that this matter is above party politics, and it was treated with the seriousness it deserves. Between us we constructed a bridge, both halves of which reached almost halfway across the chasm that had existed between the two sides. Unfortunately, that is never quite good enough.

I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who has been unfailingly courteous and patient. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose wise counsel never faltered. I pay tribute also to colleagues in another place, especially Dominic Grieve, but also Mark Oaten and the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. All have combined an adherence to principle with a genuine
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1074
 
willingness to engage and to compromise where possible. The sticking points, however, soon became all too apparent.

In order to allow ideas and free debate to flourish, it is essential that we should retain our right to criticise—even as hateful—beliefs and practices of every kind, be they secular or religious. That means retaining the right to cause a sense of insult, and also to say things that might seem abusive. I am afraid that that is why those two words, "abusive" and, especially, "insulting", even when clearly confined to the offence of stirring up hatred against people, continue to cause these Benches such difficulties. They involve the creation of a new criminal offence that could result in people being imprisoned through causing insult alone in this controversial area of religion and politics. That is the rock on which agreement foundered.

There will be a chilling effect from this legislation—there will inevitably be self-censorship—and the burden of minimising that will fall heavily on the freedom of expression clause in this Bill. The inclusion of the so-called "PEN amendment" in the amended Bill demonstrates just how seriously we in this House take our responsibilities for protecting freedom of expression.

In conclusion, Members of this House have walked a long and winding road together and I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. The end of the road seems at last in sight. I say without shame, embarrassment or false modesty that this House has improved the Bill immeasurably. We are sending back to the other place a far better Bill than the one that it handed to us a few months ago. I hope that the other place agrees.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page