Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps noble Lords are seeing a problem that is not there. I wish to press on because noble Lords have asked a number of questions. I want to try to respond to as many as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been keen for us to produce figures on arrests nationally. The Metropolitan Police has advised us that between 7 July and 23 September this year, so far as concerns cases involving racial motivation, there have been some 393 accusations in relation to offences reported and 33 religiously motivated accusations within its area. With regard to prosecutions or convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised that nationally for the three months from July to September this year, there were some 2,071 prosecutions of which 1,533 resulted in conviction. Those figures comprise all offences with a racist or religious dimension. I hope that that information helps the noble Lord in framing his approach to the Bill. With regard specifically to prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred, I can advise the House that one has commenced since 7 July and is continuing. Seven defendants, six of whom were co-defendants in the same case, have been convicted since that date. The cases against all seven defendants began before 7 July. So there is important activity. But in some ways the figures suggest that much more needs to be done; and that is why we adopt the view that we do. Noble Lords asked about the position of the Attorney-General and his consent for prosecutions under the measure. Under the existing racial hatred offence, there is a requirement for the Attorney-General’s consent. I have not heard an argument that suggests that that does not work well. It has not caused problems since that legislation was introduced by the Conservatives in 1986. I have not heard it argued from opposition Benches, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, that the Attorney-General’s consent should be removed from racial hatred offences. I wish to tackle the issue of the drafting of the Bill. A number of noble Lords said that the Bill was too wide. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that it was too sweeping. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, said that the Bill was loosely drafted. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill uses the same terms as those used for the existing racial hatred offences. The racial offences do not define hatred. No one has suggested that the existing offences are loosely drafted or that the words used in that legislation need to be further defined. The courts have had no difficulty with the existing range of offences and their understanding of them. Therefore, in so far as the language and terminology have been used in legislation of a parallel nature, the law has worked well and the meaning of that legislation is clear. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked an interesting and valuable question about how courts will balance human rights in cases. The noble Viscount deserves an answer. We believe that his question raises some interesting points. I should like to take a longer look at those issues and write to the noble Viscount so that we can give him a fuller explanation. We were also asked whether the Government would consider repealing the existing blasphemy laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raised that. Some religious and non-religious groups have suggested that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be repealed. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider that in the future but wished to consider it separately from this legislation and in conjunction with faith communities. I think that that was a wise comment, having heard some of the complaints about the lack of consultation on aspects of the Bill. There are no plans at present to abolish blasphemy, but it is important to give it longer-term consideration.