Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord understands my proposal precisely and I am very pleased that it appears to have approval in the House. I hope that it has the approval of the Government, because, if it does not, they are hiding behind misunderstandings of the Bill. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about what the law can do in this area, but that is another matter. There has certainly been misunderstanding about the Bill. The Bill does not deal merely with incitement, because the Act into which it would go does not deal only with incitement. In this respect, the Bill has been sold, no doubt unintentionally, on a false prospectus. Even Ministers on the radio this morning and other people all over the place misunderstand it. The Mayor of London has spent quite a lot of money distributing documents which state that the law is about,"““only material that incites religious hatred””." Whoever advised him on that cannot have read the Bill, or at least the 1986 Act, because, in fact, the Bill would create an offence of inciting religious hatred. Inciting religious hatred would apply, as all the textbooks say, in a case where there is intention so to act. Professors Smith and Hogan, who are authorities and, alas, no longer with us, wrote nine pages about the intention you must show if you are saying that someone is guilty of incitement. I recommend them to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate without understanding that point. Moreover, the Bill as inserted would, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, apply to insulting words which are likely to be heard by any person in whom they are likely to stir up religious hatred. At the very least, an amendment must be moved to make the legislation read,"““stirring up hatred in a reasonable person””" otherwise, the more unreasonable the audience, the wider the liability. That cannot be right. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Why do they not go away and do a bit of work on this Bill? They must cut that out. I am not sure how useful a Bill would be—I agree with those who say that false expectations have been raised—but if we must have one, the House must not refrain from moving amendments, because I believe that my noble friends, mistakenly, will push this Bill through, and that is why it must be amended. The Government have become besotted with a particular manifesto commitment, which I wish they would apply to other areas. The Bill must be amended. At the very least, we must insist that it applies where it stirs up hatred in a reasonable person. Indeed, I must add, the situation is worse than that, because your Lordships will see in the Keeling schedule, when we get it—Section 18(5) of the 1986 Act—that the right thing to say about the effect of the Bill is that someone would be liable if the words that he has used might be likely to be thought insulting and likely to stir up hatred in any person. Once one reads the Bill out as it should be read out, it creates a manifestly absurd liability. It might work for racial hatred. If it is necessary for racial hatred, I will take that on board because it is such an abomination, but it is neither useful nor effective in terms of religious hatred. I do not wish to repeat the natural difference that noble Lords have pointed out between religious belief and race. It is too apparent for words. I turn to the phrases in the Bill—I leave aside ““stir up””, which is a vile phrase. It fails to provide a definition of religion and hatred. ““Leave it to the courts””, say Ministers. Leaving it to the courts is the mark of lazy legislation. What one is really saying is, ““There is a problem here, but if it all goes wrong we can blame the judges””. That is not the way in which a responsible legislature acts. Today we have had an incredible example: religion includes those things that are worthy of respect, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. If that is the test, surely this Bill is more uncertain than anyone has said in debate so far. The experience in Australia, on a very different Bill, has at least shown that prosecution is not the only thing one has to fear. The offence under this Act, as amended by the Bill as it is, would be an unlawful means. In a civil court someone could easily start proceedings, asking for an injunction, or possibly even damages, and the Attorney-General would have no standing to intervene. The Attorney-General, who is given the possession of my and your rights—quite absurdly, as I see it—should be left to write opinions on peace and war and such matters, not messing about with little claims for prosecution in the criminal courts. It is absurd, but in a civil court he could not stop an action. I cannot believe that the Government intend to see the civil courts awash with a new wave of a religious compensation culture. Our Australian friends warn us that we must accept the fact that legislation of this kind will not improve inter-faith confidence. Legislation of this kind has been the ruin of inter-faith confidence in Australia. This Bill is put forward without recognition of the consequences that might follow—censorship, a suffocation of proper debate. Real debate in a real democracy does not observe the niceties that are implied in the abuse, in fine words, in your Lordships’ Chamber. Real debate is tough, and so it should be in a democracy. The Bill must recognise that it must not go beyond incitement—incitement entails intention. In Committee the least we can do is to confine the Bill to that area. The Government should take the initiative for such simple changes, to build a sensible consensus around an improved Bill.