I thank the Minister for his comments. I am happy to accept new clause 3 in substitution for amendment No. 10. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as so often happens when Government draftsmen lay their hands on the idea of others, the new clause reads much more happily than the amendment could ever do. I rejoice that the argument that I advanced in Committee, which I recollect was qualified by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) as barmy, appears to have received a sympathetic response from the Government.
The position is simple. The Bill, which criminalises incitement to religious hatred, leaves open the possibility that individuals could turn up at a public meeting, listen to a speaker’s words and conclude that they were infringing the law. Because there would not be a police officer present, under the new rules on the powers of citizen’s arrest they could mount the platform and say in colloquial terms, ““You’re nicked””. They could then summon the police to take that individual away, regardless of the fact that, as the Minister has often told the House, few prosecutions are anticipated under the provision.
That highlights another aspect of the Bill, to which we shall doubtless return later today. Its scope is uncertain and it is easy for someone to conclude from its wording that there has been an infringement that would justify an arrest. Even though the Attorney-General may decide that he does not wish to prosecute the matter, there would be no redress for the person who had been arrested, as those who had arrested him could argue that, under the Bill, they had a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed.
A greater recipe for community strife could not be imagined. I was reassured that I was not barmy when the week before last I met some police officers in my locality who are policing a multicultural and multi-faith area. I asked them whether they were aware that the provision was going to be introduced and what they thought about it. When they learned what was likely to happen in their locality their reaction was one of the utmost horror. There are groups in the area that they police that are on the look-out for transgressions by other religious groups or, indeed, by individuals within a religious group. Recently, for instance, one group within a religion had gone to a car park to seize religious items from another group because they believed that those items were about to be misused. The Government are therefore wise to heed my request. I was seriously concerned about the issue, so I thank the Minister for taking it on board.
The provision has been extended to cover racial hatred. I accept the Minister’s reasons for doing so, but I cannot think of a circumstance, even in relation to racial hatred, where one would wish to see a citizen’s arrest carried out in this fashion. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) said that he could not think of a single instance in which it had been a problem in the past 20 years. That is because it has never happened, but it could well happen in future.
I am grateful to the Minister, and I will not take up any more of the House’s time. I am delighted to be able to tell the Minister that we endorse wholeheartedly the Government new clause even though, I am afraid, we are most unlikely to endorse wholeheartedly the rest of the Bill.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c599-600 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:23:44 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257254
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257254
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257254