Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her generous remarks and helpful explanation. On a matter as sensitive as this, it is important to avoid party-political posturing and concentrate on substance. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary and the Minister for the open-minded and honourable way in which they have conducted negotiations with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, with me and with others on behalf of our parties and beyond. We welcome the fair compromise reached with the Home Secretary on further amendments to the Bill. Like the Minister, we regret that it is not possible for the changes to be made in this House today. That is regrettable because the Bill will leave the House in an imperfect state. The amendments that we crafted in our negotiations would improve those that I successfully moved in Committee, with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Hunt, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, and the majority of the House, without destroying the substance of the offences or undermining existing public order legislation, which for all the main offences uses the words, ““threatening, abusive or insulting””. Like the Government, we wish that it had been possible for this House, which has played such an important role in including essential safeguards in the Bill, properly to complete the work before sending the Bill back to the other place. I shall not go into the reasons why not; that would show a lack of tact and diplomacy with the other place. If, as we hope, the amendments are adopted in the other place, those changes will not wreck this manifesto Bill. Together with the remedies for religious discrimination in the Equality Bill, they will achieve the Government’s legitimate aim of giving legal protection to vulnerable religious as well as ethnic minorities against both incitement to hatred and religious and racial discrimination. The amendments will also meet another central aim of so many from all sides of the House: to include clear safeguards protecting the practical enjoyment of freedom of expression of writers, publishers, broadcasters and entertainers, and of the public, against the chilling effects of a vague and over-broad criminal law. The declaratory statements proposed to be placed in the Bill would make it clear that no offence would be committed for anything done by way of discussion or debate on religion, religious belief or religious practice; or criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing any religion, religious belief or practice. That would be a unique addition to the criminal code and is supported by English PEN. We greatly welcome the Minister’s statement, as I understand it, that the Home Secretary will table those amendments. I wish that I could claim them as my own and as a famous Liberal Democrat victory, as I believe them to be, but I understand that he will table those amendments in the other place, where we hope that they will be accepted. If any are minded to wreck the Bill in the form in which it is now proposed, I ask them to reflect not only on whether that would be in accordance with constitutional convention but whether they would wish to take the position that it should not be a crime to use abusive or insulting words deliberately to stir up hatred against Muslims as Muslims, in the way in which it has for 40 years been a crime deliberately to stir up hatred against black people or Jews because of the colour of their skin or their Jewish ethnicity. I suggest that that is not an attractive position for a modern political party to espouse. If the government amendments are included in the Bill when it returns to this House, we on these Benches will accept them. Finally, we hope that the Home Secretary will be able and willing speedily to secure the equal protection of the law by abolishing the archaic and out-moded crime of blasphemy protecting Christianity against insult and abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has just spoken about the importance that he and his party attach to leaving out the words ““insulting”” and ““abusive”” from the definition of the offence. I had not realised that he would say that, but perhaps I may explain why that is wrong. It is completely wrong because we have taken the words ““insulting”” and ““abusive”” out in the free speech guarantee. Therefore, they need to go back in because this is part of the family of all public order offences dealing with hatred against groups of people—for example, Muslims as Muslims—in the way that they deal with Jews as Jews. That is misguided; although I know that there are others in my party as well as the noble Lord’s who take a different view. I do not believe that that is a coherent position.