Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

moved Amendment No. 8:"Page 3, line 20, at beginning insert ““in the case of racial hatred,””" The noble Lord said: I should like to take the opportunity to say how I suffer from envy and confusion in a very inordinate degree in both respects. Envy for those of your Lordships who have shown such tremendous agility and such a wide vocabulary over the spread of the afternoon; and confusion as to where we have now got to. In that confusion I hope I may be forgiven if I very briefly put down a benchmark of the points I would have made if I were formally now to move the amendments standing in my name. The acting Chief Whip ought not to glare at me because she will only prolong my remarks. The point I wish to make particularly is that religion is man’s attempt—not always very good, but very necessary—to get on better terms with, and have a better understanding of, God. I profoundly believe that politicians and governments would be wise to steer clear of ground on which they are not expert and on which they do not enjoy total authority. They should particularly have in mind that legislation often creates more problems than it solves. They should also, if possible, remember that respect for the views of others sometimes wins more points than simply derision and dismissal. The law should be clear and the amendments standing in my name were designed to remedy two particular issues. The words ““it is likely to”” occur twice in a dozen lines. Paragraph 6(3)(b) of the schedule contains the following words:"““the material is likely to be seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred””." I cannot believe that any government ought to be proud of that extremely unclear, ugly and very vague piece of proposed legislation. The last point I wish to make—I am very concerned about this—is that the whole aspect of freedom of speech may be washed away in the river of other arguments. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading, made it clear that the Bill would have an impact on freedom of speech, and then went on to say that it was necessary because of a small gap in the law. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke for me when he said that the Lord Chancellor’s casual attitude towards freedom of speech really alarmed him. It alarms me. I hope the Committee will forgive me for putting down this benchmark outline of the points I wish to make. They matter to me even if they do not matter to the Government. I appreciate that the noble Baroness never fails in her courtesy. I hope she will not regard my intervention tonight as outrageous.