Lords amendment: No. 28.

I beg to move, That this House
agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 79.

Clause 124 and schedule 10 are fundamentally about protecting vulnerable communities and closing an inequality in law that is exploited by those who seek to cause damage to those communities. By introducing incitement to religious hatred, we sought to deliver justice and fairness to members of all faiths, and I am sorely disappointed that the Opposition parties in the other place have chosen not to support the provision.

There is no ulterior motive for introducing the proposed offence. We have been committed to doing so for some time. In fact, it was considered as early as 1986, when it was rejected because there was not felt to be a problem to address at the time. We introduced an almost identical offence in 2001, shortly after 11 September and the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. That was rejected because it was felt that the provision should not be included in an anti-terrorism Bill.

We have, however, remained committed to providing the protection needed since 2001. We listened carefully to the consideration of evidence by the House of Lords Select Committee, when the police informed the Committee that the offence could have helped to prevent the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. We listened carefully when a wide range of faith communities twice asked us to extend the protection now available only to Jews and Sikhs, to ensure equity of protection in law. We tried to respond to that call. Other support has come from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, the Law Society and many other organisations.

To move forward on this issue, we replicated the offence of incitement to racial hatred, which for nearly 20 years has provided protection for Jews and Sikhs, without being misused or placing unnecessary restrictions on free speech. I am baffled by those who oppose the offence on the ground of its so-called loose wording. Clause 124 uses exactly the same wording as the provision that protects Jews and Sikhs already. I am equally baffled by those who would argue that Jews and Sikhs should have greater protection in law than Muslims, Hindus, Christians or Buddhists, despite the evidence from the police and the faith communities.

The only restrictions that we have seen as a result of the incitement to racial hatred offence are those that have helped to change our culture for the better. The offence has helped to set boundaries around what is acceptable behaviour and language in our society.

Clause 124 and schedule 10 are a crucial test of the society that we want to create. By supporting the Government's proposals, the Opposition parties would have sent a clear message about society's disapproval of those who abuse the loophole in the law to promote hatred of others because of their faith. Such behaviour has no place in modern Britain.

For reasons that I stated at the time, I supported the clause to which my hon. Friend is referring. Does she agree that in practice it would not have meant that one could not criticise a religion or criticise religious practices? Like a number of Members, I have no faith, but I have recalled on a number of occasions the fact that we can affirm, because of Charles Bradlaugh, who was four times refused the right to take his seat because he had no religion. As what has been proposed would in no way ban criticism of religion—which I do not want to engage in, but which I would not challenge the right of others to express—it is difficult to understand why there should be such criticism of trying to protect people who do not have the protection that Jews and Sikhs have now.

My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently. The clause in no way attacks the right of free speech. In no way does it attack the rights of comedians, academics, politicians or anyone else to criticise individual religions. We are trying to protect individuals against whom hatred is incited because of their religious faith. As I have said, we lifted the wording from that in the current law on incitement to racial hatred. That raises the question of how Members of this place, and those in the other place, can support the law on incitement to racial hatred yet not support clause 124. As with incitement to racial hatred, a high threshold is set. There is also the Attorney-General's involvement. That would have applied in this instance, too.

It is with acute disappointment that we are having to ask the House to agree to remove the provision from the Bill. The unelected House has chosen not to rise to the challenge of what I believe is a fundamental aspect of creating a decent society. The parliamentary timetable means that it will not be possible to insist on the inclusion of the clause without jeopardising the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other important provisions to tackle crime. I do not believe that that is in anyone's interest.

The Minister is doing what other Ministers do when they are not desperately happy, and chooses to talk about the unelected other place. Will she remind the House of the proportion of the Members of the other place who have been appointed by the Prime Minister?

Discussion about the other place and how it should be constituted is not for this afternoon. I say again that Opposition parties in the House and the other place have contributed to the removal of the clause from the Bill. They will to answer for that. However, I reassure my hon. Friends that it remains the Government's firm and clear intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will make sure that that is part of our manifesto in the forthcoming general election.

We come to one of the most hotly contested aspects of the Bill, but it is not a central aspect, which is why the Minister has moved that we agree with the amendment to remove the clause and schedule dealing with religious hatred. The debate has gone on in the other place and in Committee, and I shall not rehash the arguments that divide us across the House. I shall make just three or four points.

Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Minister or anyone else that there is agreement in all parts of the House that we need to prevent religious hatred. The issue that divides us is how best to achieve that. My party has consistently supported the anti-discrimination legislation to protect people from being discriminated against in respect of their religion. Our fear is that the Government have not thought through the effect of the measure that they are putting before the House. We made it clear on Second Reading that although we largely supported the Bill, this was one aspect that we could not support.

The measure would curb free speech. It is outside the fine British traditions of religious tolerance and fierce religious debate, which have characterised the history of our country. We believe that the existing law deals with incitement to violence and words designed to cause alarm, distress or harassment. We remain convinced that the Government are wrong in their contention, and right in the amendments withdrawing the provisions. The best way to deal with evil and intolerant ideas is to confront and defeat them in open debate, not as the Government originally envisaged in the Bill. We support the amendments to remove the misguided provisions from the Bill.

I am delighted to have the opportunity at this late stage in the proceedings on the Bill to congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Mitchell and his colleagues in our home affairs team on having secured a victory for freedom of expression. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that if returned to office on 5 May, the Labour party would introduce similar legislation in the next Parliament. That seems an extremely good reason to vote Conservative on 5 May, in addition to all the other reasons.

I did not have a chance to participate in earlier debates on this matter and I shall not rehearse the arguments, but let me say at the outset that it is important that all of us should recognise the sensitivities of others, and that we should not go out of our way to be gratuitously offensive to others. I frequently take offence at things that are said, but I have to bite my lip and move on. The price that one must pay in a free society is that people will occasionally take offence. I am no exception to that.

I have had quite a few letters from constituents. My mailbag on the issue has been atypical. I have had more letters on this subject than on other issues, from constituents who have been extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposal. They will undoubtedly welcome the fact that their lordships were prepared to take a stand and strike the right balance between protecting individual faiths and individual views, and the need to preserve freedom of expression.

The coalition of people against the measure was pretty wide. The Minister referred to some of them. Rowan Atkinson the comedian, who enjoys enormous support throughout the country, was famously in the forefront of the campaign against it. Academics, journalists, authors, human rights campaigners and many on the Labour Benches expressed concern about the implications of the proposal and the threat that it posed to freedom of expression. It is important to bear in mind that those fears were shared by more than just a narrow group of people.

Christian groups were certainly concerned. Talking to people, I have found a general view—this is anecdotal evidence and I would not claim that it is backed up by some weighty study—that one can insult Christians with complete impunity, but if one insults those of the Muslim faith in particular, the whole world comes down around one. Let me give the Minister an example—the case of the Sikh play, to which the Sikhs understandably took great exception. There was a fracas in Birmingham when the play was put on, and the play was taken off.

By contrast, 60,000 people—I was one of them—complained to the BBC about the Jerry Springer programme, and what happened? Absolutely nothing. They were effectively dismissed. I am writing to Michael Grade to say that if the BBC has taken the view that its commitment to taste and decency was not infringed by the Jerry Springer programme, what is the point of the BBC having a taste and decency requirement in its charter? People feel that there is one rule for one group and another rule for others.

I am sorry that the Minister has accepted the verdict of the country and of the other place slightly less than graciously.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss the issues raised by the play in Birmingham or the Jerry Springer programme, but I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The clause deals not with satire or with taking a view against a religion, but with incitement to hatred against someone on the basis of their religious belief. That would include those of the Christian faith. That is the point. Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe we should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It has been the Government's position that those who make genuine criticisms of different faiths have nothing to fear from the measure. Unfortunately, the assurances given by David Winnick are assurances that he is in no position to deliver. Ministers are in no position to deliver them, either. Once we have enacted the provision, we are in the hands of the authorities.

The Minister says that there is a defence, in so far as the fiat of the Attorney-General is required. We know that the Attorney-General is a political appointee—I am not making a partisan point—and he is subject to the political climate of the day. There are genuine fears, which I share, that freedom of expression could be challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to point to the fact that there is already legislation that could cover the kind of incitement that none of us would support, and against which we all want action to be taken.

Many people have written to the newspapers and expressed the view that some of the statements from some of the mosques took an awfully long time for the authorities to get to grips with, whereas there was plenty of legislation that could have been invoked to deal with the matter.

Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I ask him again whether he believes that a future Conservative Government should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred? The same issue applies to that. The wording of this clause is exactly the same as the wording of that legislation. Can he give me one example of the legislation on incitement to racial hatred leading to a clampdown on free speech and discussion about race, or having an adverse effect on comedy or television viewing? My question stands: following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe that the Conservative party should be committed to repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Of course we have no intention of repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. The Minister has missed the point. The opposition to her proposals stems from the belief that the Government are using flawed logic. Religion is significantly different from race. The Barnabas Fund, which has written to me—and, I am sure, many other Members—on this point, notes that religion is a choice that affects attitude and behaviour, while race is not and does not. On that note, I rest my case.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, because other Members wish to make a contribution. I am happy to support the Government in supporting the amendments that were successfully moved in another place.

This one and a half hour debate is not the time to rehearse the various arguments on the issue. Those arguments have been made many times. I simply make a few remarks on this controversial issue, which has got passions running on all sides.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Government have been trying to achieve in these parts of the Bill. Our objections have not been about the end game—what they are trying to achieve—we simply believe that there are better ways to achieve that. We recognise the seriousness of the issue and we recognise that, for many groups, there is a real sensitivity about what are clear attempts to make racial remarks under the cover of religious remarks. There is a gap that needs to be resolved urgently because it is creating tensions in the community. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and we welcome the fact that the Government have sought to do so.

Our disagreement with the Government has been that this important set of principles and piece of legislation has been tagged on to a big Bill that considers the way in which we organise police forces in this country. We felt that that was an inappropriate way in which to tackle the issue. Our proposal has always been for an equalities Bill, which would tackle many of these issues with a well thought through piece of legislation that dealt with discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

I hope that in the next three or four weeks we do not have any nonsense from the Government suggesting in certain parts of the country that the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have been trying to wreck the Bill and do not want to do anything to tackle the problem of religious hatred. That is not the case. We believe that it is a serious issue that needs addressing. However, it should be done properly and robustly via an equalities Bill, which is a way of addressing the issue more effectively. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks.

Legitimate concerns have been put forward by a number of Members from all parts of the House, and not just by the Rowan Atkinsons of this world, but by organisations such as Liberty and PEN, the writer's organisation. They have raised concerns about the difficult balance between legitimate criticism of a religion and freedom of speech. The issue needs to be addressed, but the way to deal with it, and all the other issues, is not to tag it on to the back of a police Bill but to have a proper, well thought out equalities Bill. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks. The communities that want protection in this area should support an equalities Bill. It would give them the protections that they seek.

I will also upset the Minister by supporting the Government's invitation to us to support the amendment that takes out the clause. She has made some serious points. The Leader of the House and others on the Labour Front Bench ought not to give the impression that they intend to exploit the issue for party political reasons during the next four weeks. Given the list of serious organisations that have doubts about the Bill, whoever is in Government after 5 May should hold an open forum with those groups, and with religious groups, to reach agreement on what is useful and acceptable. I would support what the Minister might have said, which is that the clause does not refer to "Muslims" but treats all religions in the same way. I praise her for that, because it is sensible.

I end my remarks by saying that I welcome the opposition of the community in Worthing to the recent arson attack on the local Islamic centre. I will not say any more because people may be charged. I support the Islamic centre's open evenings that bring people together about once a month. To those Christians who go there to say that they do not agree with us, I say that it is one of the things about having different religions and even different denominations. It is only a few hundred years since we burnt people at the stake for different interpretations of the same book.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35 agreed to.