Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the basis on which we propose that the matter should go forward, particularly bearing in mind that pursuant to the discussion we had on Report, it was hoped that there be amendments that we could move on Third Reading. That has not proved possible. At Report stage, on 8 November, I said that we would continue to try to build a consensus on the Bill that balanced the concerns which many noble Lords had clearly expressed about the freedom of expression with a need to produce a viable and effective offence of incitement to religious hatred. It seemed to me then, as I said earlier, and it seems to me now that, in this House, such a consensus does exist: first, that we need to protect people, as I have just indicated; but, secondly, that we also need to protect our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I believe that there is still a possibility that that consensus will be arrived at. However, it has not been possible to bring forward agreed amendments to this House. I confess that that is a source of great regret and acute disappointment to me. A great deal of thought has been given to how that consensus could be achieved on this Bill. There have been discussions with key Members of this House and another place, not least the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Hunt. I thank them for their diligence and hard work in those efforts. The Government have made considerable efforts to try to meet the concerns expressed. I will leave it to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Hunt, to explain their position on these matters. It is, however, only right and fair that I set out to your Lordships the Government’s position during those negotiations. It remains our position. We are prepared to accept that the incitement to religious hatred offence should be separate from the existing racial offence, and that it should form a new schedule to the Public Order Act 1986. That is, we accept, the new architecture. We propose to insert a subjective recklessness test into the offence, clarifying the intent provisions. We will put forward a revised version of the freedom of expression wording for the sake of complete clarity on this issue. It will specifically state that proselytising, discussion, debate and criticism—including the use of abusive and insulting language and ridicule—of religion and religious practices will not be caught by the offence unless a person also intends to stir up hatred against a group of people, or is reckless as to whether it would thereby be stirred up. We have always contended that that is the Government’s intention. Finally, we will be seeking to restore ““abusive and insulting”” to the words and behaviour that make out the offence. I hope that, given the full package of measures that we are proposing, this will not be something that will cause noble Lords to disagree. I must again thank noble Lords for their considered contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through this Chamber. I recognise that the concerns expressed arise from a real desire to ensure that the treasured freedoms of this country are not eroded. On these Benches, we have upheld and expressed that desire, so there is consensus on that issue. I am absolutely committed to those aims and to ensuring that we protect our most vulnerable communities from having hatred stirred up against them by those who do not share these values. I thank those on this Bench who have arduously and consistently supported those aims. Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)