| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall not interrupt again, but I would like a clear answer to this point. The noble Lord, like his colleagues, repeatedly says that the Bill is about attacking groups of people and not beliefs. In new Section 17A, "religious hatred" is defined as,
If I say, "I hate that group of people; I hate them; and I hate them because I hate their adherence to a religion that is evil and whose practices are evil", it seems to me that I must be guilty of an offence. My hatred of the group of persons and my hatred of their beliefs, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, pointed out, are rolled up together. Why does not the Bill catch that kind of very intemperate criticism of the beliefs linked with the group? I do not understand how it fails to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have a problem with that because the circumstances the noble Lord describes would be designed to stir up and incite racial hatred.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a criticism of the religion. If you say that a religion is hateful, it follows, as the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Sutherland, and I said, that you are also saying that the people who practise it are hateful. One cannot distinguish between the two.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps noble Lords are seeing a
11 Oct 2005 : Column 277
problem that is not there. I wish to press on because noble Lords have asked a number of questions. I want to try to respond to as many as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been keen for us to produce figures on arrests nationally. The Metropolitan Police has advised us that between 7 July and 23 September this year, so far as concerns cases involving racial motivation, there have been some 393 accusations in relation to offences reported and 33 religiously motivated accusations within its area.
With regard to prosecutions or convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised that nationally for the three months from July to September this year, there were some 2,071 prosecutions of which 1,533 resulted in conviction. Those figures comprise all offences with a racist or religious dimension. I hope that that information helps the noble Lord in framing his approach to the Bill.
With regard specifically to prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred, I can advise the House that one has commenced since 7 July and is continuing. Seven defendants, six of whom were co-defendants in the same case, have been convicted since that date. The cases against all seven defendants began before 7 July. So there is important activity. But in some ways the figures suggest that much more needs to be done; and that is why we adopt the view that we do.
Noble Lords asked about the position of the Attorney-General and his consent for prosecutions under the measure. Under the existing racial hatred offence, there is a requirement for the Attorney-General's consent. I have not heard an argument that suggests that that does not work well. It has not caused problems since that legislation was introduced by the Conservatives in 1986. I have not heard it argued from opposition Benches, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, that the Attorney-General's consent should be removed from racial hatred offences.
I wish to tackle the issue of the drafting of the Bill. A number of noble Lords said that the Bill was too wide. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that it was too sweeping. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, said that the Bill was loosely drafted. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill uses the same terms as those used for the existing racial hatred offences. The racial offences do not define hatred. No one has suggested that the existing offences are loosely drafted or that the words used in that legislation need to be further defined. The courts have had no difficulty with the existing range of offences and their understanding of them. Therefore, in so far as the language and terminology have been used in legislation of a parallel nature, the law has worked well and the meaning of that legislation is clear.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked an interesting and valuable question about how courts will balance human rights in cases. The noble Viscount deserves an answer. We believe that his question raises some interesting points. I should like to take a longer look at those issues and write to the noble Viscount so that we can give him a fuller explanation.
11 Oct 2005 : Column 278
We were also asked whether the Government would consider repealing the existing blasphemy laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raised that. Some religious and non-religious groups have suggested that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be repealed. In the debate on the Queen's Speech earlier this year, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider that in the future but wished to consider it separately from this legislation and in conjunction with faith communities. I think that that was a wise comment, having heard some of the complaints about the lack of consultation on aspects of the Bill. There are no plans at present to abolish blasphemy, but it is important to give it longer-term consideration.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord may have overlooked my question regarding whether or not the Government would allow a free vote when I table an amendment to abolish blasphemy, as I intend to do tomorrow.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is for consideration on another day. I certainly do not wish to dwell on it this evening, particularly as I have many points to respond to and am fast running out of the time that I should occupy.
I was particularly interested in the contribution from the Opposition Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. She made the important point that the Government should tackle Muslim disadvantage. I could not disagree with that. One has to look at the legislation in context and as part of a developing and evolving policy. If we took part of the noble Baroness' comments at face value, we would not be acting at all on an agenda that dealt with social cohesion and inequality or tackled the disadvantages and alienation that exists in many Muslim communities.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, because I know that noble Lords would like to go home. I do not believe that the Bill will tackle underachievement in any way. The Bill will separate us even further from each other. It will create space between us, and we will be more afraid to communicate in a free and frank manner.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness made that point, too, during her speech. We see it as part of a bigger picture, and it is a necessary measure to deal with a particular evil in a small set of circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as ever, made a valid contribution, and he asked for responses on three points. He talked about "nutty" religions. Courts are used to dealing with questions of definition, particularly relating to religion. There is relevant case law on the issue that, we believe, would exclude
11 Oct 2005 : Column 279
religions that, for example, advocated child abuse. So, we can expect the law to be sensible in dealing with "nutty" religions.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord define a "nutty" religion? Some people think that all religions are nutty.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Well, my Lords, no doubt they do, and we have to respect people's views.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs asked whether the Attorney-General would be able to resist pressure. I can think of no examples of the Attorney-General using his powers inappropriately in the context of racial hatred offences. We must trust the good sense of the office holder and in the past we have been able to do that with confidence, whichever party has been in government.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made an important point about managing expectations, which many others echoed. I agree that we have work to do in that regard, and we are already undertaking—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the state can adjudicate in these complicated matters? Why not leave religions to work it out for themselves? Does he really believe that the state can do it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a case for state intervention in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made a number of powerful points on that.
We have now had 22 minutes of my reply. I have no
11 Oct 2005 : Column 280
great desire to withdraw from or duck the issues raised in the debate; they are extensive and most of them can be dealt with in Committee. If I have missed important points in dealing with the broad thrust of the issues I shall pick them up in correspondence and will be more than happy to circulate that to all who have taken part.
One issue in particular was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the importance of consulting on guidance. I assure the House that we fully intend to do that. We hope to publish draft guidance before we get too far into the detail of the debate in Committee.
The issue of publication of the Keeling schedule was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Hunt. We have produced a consolidated version of what the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would look like in its connection with the Public Order Act 1986. That is available and was placed today in the Library.
This has been a very long, learned, interesting, witty and powerful debate. I can see from the plethora of questions and issues raised that we are going to have a very hard-fought Committee stage. As ever, I shall give a commitment from the Government Benches that we will listen and respond to those points. Of course we will continue to work with those who seek to resolve what I think most of us can agree is a very urgent issue. Even the strongest opponents of the Government's case accept that there is an issue at the root of this. I hope that our debates can be constructive in finding a solution that finds support not only in your Lordships' House but more particularly in another place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |