Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, it falls to me, at the opening of my response, to join in the general congratulations that have been offered to my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lady Corston. I listened with great interest to their speeches, not least that of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. He is the chairman of an extraordinarily successful football club. If my noble friend looks at the league table for the Championship, he will see Brighton and Hove Albion languishing in the lower part of that division. So I may have to advise our chairman that he needs to seek urgent advice north of the Border. I also pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Corston for her contribution to the debate. My noble friend has a very distinguished political history and brings to your Lordships’ House her extensive knowledge as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Her words today were well chosen and not in the least controversial. Indeed, I thought they were most helpful to our debate, and I am sure that she will assist us greatly when the Bill goes into Committee for more detailed consideration. This has been a very long and interesting debate. There were many excellent contributions from all sides of your Lordships’ House, with a very full range of views expressed. I anticipated that this would not be the most popular of measures before your Lordships’ House, given the audience suggested by the speakers’ list. Of course we in government will reflect very carefully on all the comments that have been made. It is no great mystery that the Bill generates strong views for and against the proposed offences. I appreciate and understand that many noble Lords have considerable reservations about the Bill. The Government recognise those concerns and we will try to deal with as many of them as possible this evening and during the detailed consideration of the measures in Committee. I remain convinced of the need for legislation in this area. There is a gap in the law, albeit a small one, and it is right that we seek to address that. We will have the opportunity to look at the detail, but I am encouraged by the constructive nature of most of the debate. I shall try to deal with some of the more general issues as we go through them. It is worth going back to where we started and asking ourselves again why we feel the Bill is required. The new offence will close the unacceptable loophole whereby Jews and Sikhs are protected from incited hatred whereas other faith groups and those without religious beliefs are not. Jews and Sikhs are covered by existing incitement-to-racial-hatred laws as a result of decisions made in the courts. This is on the basis of those groups having a distinct ethnic identity. The existing law, as it is currently interpreted, does not protect other religions that do not have distinct ethnic origins, whether they are Christians or Muslims. This measure will end that anomaly by extending the same protection to all. Unfortunately, as we know, some individuals seek to turn people’s fears and frustrations into hatred of others purely because they have different religious beliefs. This may take the form of malicious publications, distributed by extremist groups, or of speeches at public meetings that use inflammatory language and exhort people to make life unbearable for those of a certain religion. Ample evidence of that has been given during the debate this evening and it has been very passionately expressed. We believe that although incitement to religious hatred is not an everyday occurrence, where it exists it has the potential to tear communities apart, creating the dangerous tensions between groups to which many of your Lordships have given voice this evening. At an individual level—we cannot ignore this fact—that can lead to fear, intimidation and a sense of isolation. Since the Bill prohibits stirring up hatred against people defined by reference to their religious beliefs and not the religion itself, and does not prohibit simply causing offence or hostility, we envisage that the offence will capture only a very few cases each year. It is worth reminding ourselves that since 1987, with the commencement of the Public Order Act, there have been just 76 prosecutions and 44 convictions. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and many others argued in part that this is failure on the part of government and law enforcement agencies and that we should be more energetic and work harder to secure convictions and enforce the law as it is.