Clause 1 - Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
12:15 pm
Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s local newspaper is highly reputable, but it did not quite capture the accuracy of my remarks. I said that among other pressures, such as criminality and other racist attitudes, the police had advised us that the absence of the proposed offence played into the mix that created the run-up to the disturbances not just in Bradford but in other northern towns. Let me draw his attention to the comments made to the House of Lords by Martin Baines, race relations officer with West Yorkshire police. Referring to anti-Muslim literature, he said:
“that kind of very insidious material was widespread throughout the city. It did create a climate of fear...I think that it did significantly impact upon the situation.”
I know that the reports in the Bradford newspaper attributed comments to me that I did not make. I simply want to assure the hon. Member for Shipley and the good people of the area whom he represents and those across Bradford more widely that I did not say that the absence of the proposed offence was the only cause, but I am advised that it played into the mix. That is one reason why we must close the loophole and introduce the new offence.
Finally, I turn to the likely limb. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said rightly that we would return to the issue later, although I hope that Committee members will all have received a letter from me—I see one hon. Gentleman shaking his head, and another nodding, so we will ensure that in time for the fuller debate everybody has the letter. It is a letter that I promised to write following some informal discussions, and it sets out the changes that we seek to make to the second strand of the offence—the so-called likely limb.
As the Public Order Act stands, it is necessary to prove either that someone intended to stir up racial hatred or—the second strand—having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. We want to change the second limb, but we do not do so to lower the threshold—I want to scotch that idea right from the start. The test, in terms of levels of feeling and the high level of hatred, will still exist, and religious belief will also be involved.
We are aiming not to lower the threshold but to deal with an issue to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred: that it could be argued that under the current law the point to be proved is whether somebody saw the material that was likely to stir up hatred. We want to change that slightly, because we do not see why somebody should get away with the insidious offence just because the police arrived first and took down the poster or just because the first person to see it and rip it down was a decent law-abiding person who would never be incited to hatred by such material. We seek not to lower the test but to ensure that those who are guilty, regardless of whoever actually saw the material that they produced, can be prosecuted.