Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, crucial points have already been made in this debate. I want to express gratitude from these Benches for the way in which the Minister has included so many of us in the discussions that have been held in framing what we have before us. I very much welcome many of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As a bishop in Manchester, I am well aware of the great difficulties that Muslims and Jews face in all these complex matters. I can speak probably on behalf of my colleagues in saying that we are very open to further discussion on all these issues. Indeed, the reference that he made to blasphemy, while obviously it would not be appropriate for me to say any more than that we would welcome further discussion on that matter, nevertheless is a point which I make with sincerity to him. In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to some of the points that she had made in the debate on 8 November. Perhaps I may briefly from these Benches, first, welcome the creation of a separate part within the Public Order Act devoted to religious hatred. As has already been said today, that makes it clearer and safer to treat religious hatred on its own terms, and not simply to read across the racial hatred provisions, which is most unsatisfactory. So I welcome that. Secondly, from these Benches we approve the general thrust of the exemptions in paragraph 29J of the schedule. The schedule embraces the crucial activities that ought to be protected; that is, discussion, criticism, persuading people to change their religious beliefs or practices, antipathy, ridicule and even abuse and insult, so long as they are directed against beliefs and practices rather than people. We also regard it as important that the term ““discussion”” in paragraph 29J should be held to cover the delivery of religious teaching and preaching where assertions are properly made with a sense of conviction and authority, and not merely as interesting hypotheses or helpful suggestions. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on that matter. Thirdly, we are relieved that the amendment has removed the likely limb of the offence. We welcome the reinstatement of the words ““abusive”” and ““insulting”” as terms that protect vulnerable people more adequately. It has already been said that we are not quite in the position today that we might all have liked. Nevertheless, the progress of the Bill has demonstrated one of many occasions when people from all sides of the House have engaged in a most constructive manner. We are that much closer to a position where most of us would like to be in addressing an extremely important issue facing communities in this country.