Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I do not agree with any of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I do not understand—[Interruption.]—any of it, he says from a sedentary position. I do not understand how he can get any of that from the Lester amendment. There are many in the Muslim community who recognise what it does and are grateful for it. It makes it clear in law that racists cannot hide behind religious words to promulgate racial hatred. It makes it clear that racist Islamophobia is unlawful. Every time we legislate in this area, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North pointed out, there is a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the need to tackle a social problem. We say that if hatred is being incited against people on the basis of their religion, which will clearly not be considered by the court to be incitement to racial hatred using a religious pretext—that rules out all the activities of the BNP and the far right, for a start—and that serious problems are being caused outwith that set of people and those motivations, we will need to re-examine the matter. However, the presumption in the House must be in favour of preserving free speech. Many of the arguments—not all, because some people did not see that there was a problem—around the introduction of the measure were about the balance between free speech and the need to legislate. Simply because 30 or 40 years ago, when the measure was first introduced, some people thought that it went too far—I believe that they were wrong then and that it did not go too far, because there was clear mischief that needed to be dealt with—does not mean that the Government should have carte blanche to introduce any sort of law. We must discuss each measure on its merits and decide whether the need to preserve free speech has been met. That deals with the point that was raised in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who urged us and those on his own Front Bench to support a race law that covers only acts likely or liable to lead to other criminal offences. I see his point, and I see the need to balance free speech. The Liberal Democrats believe that the current race hate laws are appropriate for dealing with the problem, and that the freedom of speech which they restrict is not a freedom of speech worth defending. It is not rational to attack people on the basis of their race, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It is right that we should have philosophical discussions about these matters, but in the end there is a balance. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the Lester amendment tackles the problem out there, and therefore that it should be supported. My next point relates to the argument used by the Minister that because the Attorney-General blocked only seven prosecutions, there is not really a problem. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and others identified the problem that in this and similar legislation, we are leaving it to the Attorney-General to decide what is and is not acceptable. One must have good reason for allowing that. The problem for people in the artistic and entertainment world is not just that the Attorney-General will allow them to be prosecuted, but that steps will be taken against them by the Crown Prosecution Service in building up the case to put to the Attorney-General and by the police. They may even be picked up for questioning or arrested. Complaints will be made against artists and entertainers and, as the Government accept in a letter to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who kindly gave me a copy, there will be restrictions on their ability to present their work. In a letter of 7 July from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), although under the letterhead of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), he accepts that"““if a policeman decided that the circumstances warranted further investigation””—" there is no Attorney-General in that decision—"““then it is only right that the police ask those responsible for the conduct in question to discontinue it while an investigation takes place.””" That spells bankruptcy for that production if the producer has to pull it on the basis of complaints. We have seen that we live in a society where there is a propensity for complaints to be made. We saw it in the case of ““Jerry Springer—the Opera””, and I fear that we will see it again if it goes to regional theatres, and we saw it in the case of ““Behtzi””. The Minister should recognise that hiding behind the Attorney-General will not give people who wish to pursue their artistic freedom protection from censorship or from being taken off the air and the stage.