Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, we understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, cannot be here and we look forward to seeing her again soon, as we do the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to whom we wish a speedy recovery. What an interesting debate this has been. We have had two very enjoyable maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on his speech. He is rightly proud of Hearts, although the record got stuck in one or two places. I was reminded of the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson:"““’Tis only noble to be good. Kind hearts are more than coronets””." All I will say is that he should not take too much of the credit for the performance of the team, because I think that the players and the manager might have had something to do with it. He also strongly criticised that independent-minded broadcaster Jim Naughtie. I once did that and I regretted it. I hope he will not. But he comes with a distinguished background. I recall debating him in the 60s when I think he was president of the Scottish Union of Students. He was always a bit of a slippery customer, so he has quite a track record. But I pay tribute to the four years of service which no one has yet mentioned that he gave at the Department for International Development, where he did much good before he was promoted in 2001. All I will say is that if that speech was, according to the Companion, rightly uncontroversial, I can hardly wait for his more controversial speeches. I am particularly pleased to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. She has had a very distinguished career. I do not know whether she also will recall that I featured in the West Country in one party and she was the organiser in the then Labour Party. She has had a very illustrious career, particularly in Select Committees: agriculture followed by home affairs and so forth. I notice that in her recreations she is a tap dancer. I have to say that rather like her colleague she provided some support as they both danced around in support of the Bill, but they were the only speakers—apart from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—in the first 15 speeches who showed any support for the Bill. We had to wait for the 15th speech and I hope that they will not suffer from this isolation in future, because I have to report to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we understand why he had to leave the debate at various stages—that 80 per cent of the speakers have been overwhelmingly opposed to the Bill in its present form. The Government should not be surprised by that, but the noble and learned Lord missed the comment of my noble friend Lady Flather, who described it as a piddling little Bill. Using more conservative language, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell called it unnecessary, unwise with unintended consequences. I noticed that the noble and learned Lord entered the Chamber during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he heard some of it but missed the opening, which was a devastating broadside. The noble Lord described the Bill as the most illiberal Bill ever introduced in his experience. I just did not want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to go to bed tonight without knowing what his noble friend had said. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord avoided answering the very simple question I put about how this sits alongside the Government’s intentions so far as the alleged preachers of hate are concerned. We still await the full context so that we can see the overall picture. I hope the Minister will respond on that point. The Bill never survived the speeches at the start of the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They produced a devastating critique. Many other speakers have raised subtle questions about the Bill which I hope the Government will seek to answer. There has been a strong sense of déjà vu about the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, we have been here before—we have exchanged views on these proposals on several occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that this had also been debated in 1936, 1965 and 1981. So we come to this issue with some sense of history. On this occasion, none of us should harbour any illusions. In the wake of the general election in May, Ministers have made it plain that they believe they have a mandate to legislate in this area. Indeed, I noticed that as well as quoting—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady O’Cathain did—from this outrageous letter from someone describing themselves as ““Labour’s Home Secretary”” during the election campaign, it was interesting to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on 29 September at the Labour Party conference, when he confessed, after eight years of new Labour, that a real democratic deficit is developing. I agree with him that it is. When he seeks a mandate for this measure, he himself has conceded that less than half the Asian electorate voted. But, of course, it is quite wise to refer to the terms of the Labour manifesto commitment because it concludes that we must find out,"““about how best to balance protection, tolerance and free speech””." This changes nothing in our deeply-held reservations about the substance of this egregious Bill. We shall do everything we can to prevent the Government upsetting the crucial balance between protection and freedom of expression. We shall also continue to challenge Ministers on whether the legislation satisfies—as many speakers have pointed out—their own stated ambitions for it. We shall also ask the difficult questions about why religion and adherents of religion are to receive this special treatment in law. So I approach this debate very much in a spirit of sorrow rather than anger. There have been some very important contributions. I share the outrage at the personal attack suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It was the kind of attack directed against me and others many years ago when we fought for the rights of the Ugandan Asians in the early 1970s. But the noble Lord pointed out, as I have on several occasions, that existing laws cover possible criminal prosecutions in circumstances of that nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, the proposed legislation is a straitjacket; it is the wrong way ahead. My noble friend Lord Taylor gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House. He told us that wisdom is better than strength. How right he is. He suffered a lot from prejudice in his personal experiences. I greatly admire the resolute way in which he has always pursued what he believes. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, reminded us, it is the opinion-formers, the opinion-leaders, who have helped to fashion our multi-racial society. We have every right to be proud of that. I hope that the Government will think again and listen to the many speakers who not only oppose the Bill but ask them to withdraw it. They have failed to honour the commitment given to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to consult. They have rushed into this Bill and they are already beginning to regret it. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has just affirmed, we will continue to press for reassurances. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, underwent what I can only describe as barracking from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The major point that the noble Lord was making—that freedom of speech is essential for the advancement of knowledge—seemed to have escaped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Government will reflect upon those points. At Second Reading in another place, the Home Secretary said:"““If we can find a form of words during consideration of the Bill in Committee and elsewhere that provides further reassurance . . . that freedom of expression is not inhibited, we are flexible about examining amendments to that effect””.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/05; col. 669.]" I was sad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, yesterday, that the Government do not propose to move any amendments in Committee. Some of the fears expressed by noble Lords opposite are borne out. The Government intend to push the Bill onto the statute book in its present form. I hope that the powerful appeal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for the Government to consider amendments will be heeded. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be moving the amendment for which he is rightly given credit. The Government must cease to be intransigent on the Bill. They will not get their Bill if they maintain their present approach. I am not able to do justice to the many speakers who have contributed, particularly on the issue of artistic freedom, which raises huge issues about which scrupulously enlightened organisations such as PEN have briefed us. There is a double whammy in the Bill and I will deal with that in Committee. I was particularly impressed by the speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her concern for the effect on the book industry. The Bill has unintended consequences about which many noble Lords have spoken. The Government must have a more open approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, warned us that the Bill will encourage and strengthen fundamentalism. That is a real worry. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked the very relevant question about what we are going to do about nutty religions. The most devastating point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was that, because of the lack of definition in the Bill, the perversion of Islam will be regarded as a religion. What the Prime Minister has been railing against will be protected by the Bill. I should point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have committed him to providing a Keeling schedule. As I understood it, he will reprint the Public Order Act 1986 in the form as it is amended so that we can all understand the wider context. If I am wrong, and the noble and learned Lord is not going to respond to Sir Edward Keeling’s brilliant idea in 1937, perhaps the Minister will tell us. In conclusion, I think I speak for almost everyone on these Benches when I say that the Bill seems intrusive, despotic and is likely to be utterly, woefully, counter-productive unless it is radically amended. No matter what is supposedly intended, if the Bill is enacted in this form, as everyone has already conceded, it will restrict freedom of speech and expression. I never thought I would see the day when a government could seriously turn the act of insulting someone’s religion into a criminal offence. I have already mentioned that the Labour Party has sought to exploit this legislation and the opposition to it of other parties to its own political advantage. No generation of politicians has the right to play fast and loose with our fundamental freedoms in the way that it has, especially in the lack of any consensus between the parties. In his famous message to Congress at the beginning of 1941, President Roosevelt spoke of four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression; freedom of every person to worship God in his own way; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. Whatever the motivation behind the Bill, it fails the Roosevelt test because it will spread fear and restrict freedom of speech and expression in ways that we can scarcely begin to imagine. I hope that the Government will think again.