Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his amendment suggesting that reasonableness should be a defence. I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness an opportunity to answer the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I would not be so impertinent as to repeat it if he were in his place, but he is not and she did not seem to have the opportunity to answer it previously. The position arises like this. It ties in with the question on which I am sure the noble Baroness would like to say more—it would certainly be helpful to the Committee if she could—of whether it is sufficient, as the Committee indicated that it does not think that it is, that something should be merely likely to stir up racial hatred rather than be intended to stir up racial hatred. If one takes the example of what the Prime Minister said after the bombings of 7 July, which, in my view, was entirely reasonable, he said that religious teaching that encouraged the bombings was vicious and appalling. I do not believe that the Prime Minister intended thereby to stir up racial hatred. I feel confident myself that he had no such thought in his mind. On the other hand, his comment was entirely reasonable in the circumstances. Nonetheless it may well have been likely to stir up some people to hate those who had carried out those vicious and appalling acts as a result of what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay called their perverted religious beliefs. In those circumstances, it seems that the Bill as it stood prior to the amendment passed by the Committee about an hour ago—the Bill as proposed by the Government—renders those words an offence and that the only thing that would stand between that offence and prosecution would be the opinion of the Attorney-General. That is not a satisfactory way to avoid such an event, because the Attorney-General must be no respecter of persons in these matters. He must be entirely even-handed. Of course he must look at all the circumstances, but we must not pass a law that contains defects that leave only that as a safeguard. I should be most grateful if, when she comes to reply, the noble Baroness could reply to those questions, which I have, I hope, articulated clearly enough.