– in the House of Lords at 2:59 pm on 24 January 2006.
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, no offence is committed on the sole ground that a person has read aloud from the scriptures traditionally held sacred by one of the main world religions within a place of worship or at a private meeting."
My Lords, I hope very much that this amendment is a model of what a Third Reading amendment should be. It is for the avoidance of doubt and is intended to clear up an uncertainty in the Bill. It does not seek to reopen matters already decided. Furthermore, it has been tightly and narrowly drafted with the help of the Public Bill Office. It protects readings from the scriptures held sacred by one or other of the main world religions, provided that the reading takes place inside a place of worship or at a private meeting—for example, in a house or a school. Outdoor meetings are deliberately not covered.
We all know that violent and bloodthirsty passages can be found in many ancient scriptures written hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Today's audiences should use their critical judgment in applying such texts to the actual contemporary circumstances. They should perhaps give greater weight to the injunction to,
"love your neighbour as yourself", than to,
"an eye for an eye".
At all events, the amendment gives no protection to comments or sermons based on texts. My amendment has the useful, practical purpose of reducing the scope for frivolous or malicious complaints. These could well lead to police investigations of possible incitement to religious hatred and to long considerations of whether to prosecute. On all these grounds, I trust that the amendment will find favour with the Government and with your Lordships. I beg to move.
My Lords, very briefly, I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that although the amendment was tabled "for the avoidance of doubt", it is the progenitor of inconsistency. Texts from scriptures of some main religions are manifestations in themselves of religious hatred and exhortations to take unlawful action on that account. What is the intention—and intention now lies at the root of the Bill—of reading out these texts,
"within a place of worship or at a private meeting", if other than to stir up religious hatred? Is there not some general doubt, in any event, whether matters covered by this complex Bill will not find their way on to a website in Holland and tend to exacerbate religious strife in this country? These are questions that have not been considered in the debate. I shall abstain, of course, but I respectfully suggest that they are worthy of consideration.
My Lords, I perfectly understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has introduced this amendment. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that no offence would be committed under the Bill as amended in Committee in this House or, indeed, under the Bill in its original form. As the House will hear shortly from the Minister, for reasons that she and others may explain, before this Bill finally becomes law it will be in a form which I am confident would make this amendment in any event otiose—as lawyers like to say—or unnecessary.
The amendment also gives rise to some problems, which we do not need to debate now, about what is meant by "the main world religions" and what happens to those that are the world's minor religions or other religions. There are problems about discrimination between religions, the definitions of religions and so on. While we all understand the aim of the amendment, I think that I can reassure the House—as one of the architects of what we did in Committee—that it is not necessary for the avoidance of any doubt. If there were any, I am sure that it would be taken care of in other ways before the Bill received Royal Assent.
My Lords, I have the utmost sympathy with the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The truth is, though, that we have come a very long way towards achieving a balance between protection of people from behaviour motivated by hatred and the preservation of freedom of expression in religious matters.
Over the months, the Government have taken seriously the concerns expressed from many quarters—sometimes perhaps a bit late in the day and maybe even under occasional duress. Nevertheless, in my view, the presently amended form of the Bill before us today paves the way for a satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendment, but I rather pray that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not wish to test the view of the House.
My Lords, I am not entirely clear when and if it will be appropriate to speak about the Bill more generally, picking up the point made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I very much agree with the points that they made. At Second Reading, I made it clear that I did not believe that the measure was compatible with the values of a free and tolerant society and I put my name to the group of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has referred and which, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, cover the issues to which he wants to draw the House's attention this afternoon.
As I understand it, there have been discussions involving my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister of State, and a good deal of common ground has been found. I very much welcome that and hope that it will be brought to fruition. I may be misinformed but I understand that the opposition Front Benches in another place have reservations about the degree of common ground that has been found. If that is so, it is extremely regrettable because there is a big danger of making the best the enemy of the good in this kind of case.
The Bill, as it now exists after amendment in Committee, effectively covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I think it is a much better Bill than the one that came here, yet that was the Government's ideal Bill. The present Bill, even with this common ground established, will no longer be the Government's ideal Bill; it will be their compromise Bill. There are dangers in opposition Members in another place seeking to undermine the degree of common ground that has been arrived at and, as I said, making the best the enemy of the good.
Given the political pressures in another place, we do not want the Government suddenly deciding to reintroduce the original Bill rather than accepting and going with what seems to me the fair compromise which has, I understand, been agreed. In my judgment—backed up by the much more expert noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—that compromise would underpin a good outcome and show what the House of Lords is capable of doing in terms not of trying to sink a Bill which is a manifesto commitment but of trying to challenge the Government and revise a Bill in a very constructive way.
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that unfortunately I very much agree with the statements made by other noble Lords. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Plant, the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—this is not the right amendment. I reassure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate the concern that has caused him to proceed with tabling the amendment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in the way that he suggests—not least because of the amendments that were made earlier.
As we have said previously, the Bill is about stirring up hatred. It is difficult to see how simply reading from a sacred text would ever, by itself, be considered an action that would stir up hatred. The only circumstances that I can envisage where the reading out of a sacred text could possibly fall within the scope of an offence would be if such a reading were accompanied by actions or words which are already adequately covered by the freedom of expression exemption currently in the Bill at paragraph 29J. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, the architect of these provisions, is therefore quite right in saying that it would be unnecessary, because the Bill exempts matters such as criticism and expressions of antipathy towards a particular religious belief.
When we reach the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I will report to the House, as I undertook to do on Report, the outcome of our strenuous deliberations, which have engaged all Benches—the Bishops' Bench, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves—to try to come to an accommodation. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is seeking to underline the consensus which we all arrived at—that we need to do two things. We need to protect people from the aberrant and quite disastrous effects of religious hatred but, by the same terms, not put any improper restriction on our freedom of speech and of expression. When we come to the next stage, I will seek to outline the Government's response to those issues.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I appreciate the improvements that have already been made to the Bill, particularly in the matter of intention and freedom of expression. I acknowledge that my amendment may well be deficient as regards definitions. I look forward to hearing the statement that the Minister has promised. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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 would be amendments that we could move on Third Reading. That has not proved possible.
At Report, on
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.)
My Lords, as so often during the long life of these proposals, I speak not in anger but in sorrow. I hope this will not be taken as a partisan point, but our starting point for this latest journey was not very promising. I am reminded of the old joke where one man asks another for directions and, after a pause, his interlocutor begins by saying, "Well, you wouldn't want to be starting from here". Unfortunately, Ministers made a fundamental mistake by attempting to amend the Public Order Act 1986 by effectively adding "religious" to "racial" throughout the existing offences. That misjudged attempt to equate religion with race started this entire debate off on the wrong track. It has taken a lot of effort, courage and patience, not least on the part of Ministers, to get the debate on to the right track. I readily pay tribute to Ministers for their willingness to listen and to restructure this fundamental aspect of their original approach.
As the Minister pointed out, as soon as Ministers agreed that the proposed new offence of inciting religious hatred should appear separately as a new schedule to the 1986 Act, the possibility of reaching a consensus was created. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the short debate we have just had on his amendment which reinforces that point. Suddenly, it became possible to fine-tune the religious hatred offence without also reopening the 1986 settlement on racial hatred. At a stroke, a broad consensus here and in another place seemed not only attainable in principle, but tantalisingly close in practice. As we return this rewritten Bill to the other place, I fervently hope that its Members will think again and endorse our view that a person's race and his or her religion are quite different qualities. Race is innate. In a liberal democracy, it must be an article, if not of faith, then surely of the fundamental foundations of our political discourse, that beliefs are a matter of individual choice. Adherence to a faith, belief or set of beliefs is about ideas and should not be elevated in law to a higher plane than any other idea or ideas. That is why on
I thought it might be helpful if I set out my response to the noble Baroness. Just as Ministers conceded ground and accepted both our amended structure and substantive aspects of the revised Bill, so we on these Benches have moved too. We did so at the outset, by conceding the principle that any such Bill should be passed at all. Although we on these Benches certainly agree that there should be no right to stir up hatred of people, on the whole we continue to believe that the existing law covers this perfectly adequately. That was underlined by the recent travails of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, who was apparently investigated by the Metropolitan Police after expressing negative views about homosexuality.
We really must do everything we can to ensure that this new legislation is not open to abuse. It must not open the floodgates to a mass of frivolous complaints, much wasting of police time and pointless inconvenience and worry for those who express trenchant views about religion. However, as the great Rab Butler once said, politics is the art of the possible.
The Labour Party won the last election and committed itself to legislate in this area—and we all remember the terms of the Labour manifesto. During our meetings with Ministers, I confirm that it soon became clear we were all seeking to achieve the same objective; namely, absolute clarity in the Bill that any new offence should capture the stirring-up of hatred against people and not beliefs or practices. Throughout there was a lot of good will on all sides. Shortly before Christmas, it seemed that that good will might manifest itself in a more concrete form in the shape of an agreement on the Bill. Alas that did not prove possible. The concessions offered by Ministers were by no means perfect, but they were a major improvement on the original Bill. I should like to pay tribute to everyone involved because there was no shortage of constructive contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I believe strongly that this matter is above party politics, and it was treated with the seriousness it deserves. Between us we constructed a bridge, both halves of which reached almost halfway across the chasm that had existed between the two sides. Unfortunately, that is never quite good enough.
I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who has been unfailingly courteous and patient. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose wise counsel never faltered. I pay tribute also to colleagues in another place, especially Dominic Grieve, but also Mark Oaten and the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. All have combined an adherence to principle with a genuine willingness to engage and to compromise where possible. The sticking points, however, soon became all too apparent.
In order to allow ideas and free debate to flourish, it is essential that we should retain our right to criticise—even as hateful—beliefs and practices of every kind, be they secular or religious. That means retaining the right to cause a sense of insult, and also to say things that might seem abusive. I am afraid that that is why those two words, "abusive" and, especially, "insulting", even when clearly confined to the offence of stirring up hatred against people, continue to cause these Benches such difficulties. They involve the creation of a new criminal offence that could result in people being imprisoned through causing insult alone in this controversial area of religion and politics. That is the rock on which agreement foundered.
There will be a chilling effect from this legislation—there will inevitably be self-censorship—and the burden of minimising that will fall heavily on the freedom of expression clause in this Bill. The inclusion of the so-called "PEN amendment" in the amended Bill demonstrates just how seriously we in this House take our responsibilities for protecting freedom of expression.
In conclusion, Members of this House have walked a long and winding road together and I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. The end of the road seems at last in sight. I say without shame, embarrassment or false modesty that this House has improved the Bill immeasurably. We are sending back to the other place a far better Bill than the one that it handed to us a few months ago. I hope that the other place agrees.
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 outmoded 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.
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
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.
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has said that we are not in the position we would like to be, and I would say only that if the Bill had not gone into a secret cabal and we had had the discussion on the Floor of the House, we would probably have reached a much better position. I object to the way this matter has been handled. As the noble Baroness is aware, I have not been privy to the discussions that have taken place between the Home Secretary, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Over many years I was involved in trying to secure legislation on similar lines to those we are now discussing. In their wisdom, noble Lords sent a Bill that I introduced to a Select Committee where it was considered for a whole year. It came back to the Floor of the House and was there further discussed. On those occasions we had every opportunity to talk about the matters that have preoccupied us during the proceedings on this Bill, particularly the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others for separating incitement to religious hatred from incitement to racial hatred. I persist in the view that that is a mistake. Aside from anything else, when the courts come to deal with offences of this kind, they will have to say that Parliament intended something completely different from what is already set out in the Public Order Act 1986. If we had continued on the original lines, we would have prevented that confusion arising.
This is not a matter which has come up recently, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It was considered by the Law Commission as long ago as 1985. At the time the commission said that although incitement to religious hatred was not a proximate matter for Parliament to consider, if it ever became so, it would be a simple matter to legislate by adding religion to Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. That was the genesis of the proposal. It was picked up by the Government in the NIA Act and further developed in the Select Committee. I remain convinced that it would have been preferable to continue along those lines. However, since we decided not to do that, it was incumbent on the Government to introduce their proposals in the light of day, not to discuss them with Front-Benchers behind the scenes. That is not a way to legislate. I am very disappointed that we do not have proposals before us showing how the Government intend to handle this matter when it is sent to the other place.
My Lords, in moving the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I should say to the noble Lord that all this will be passed over to the other place, which will be able to deal with it. For procedural reasons we were not in a position to table amendments in this House, so noble Lords have not had that opportunity. But all this will be dealt with in other place.
We should now allow the Bill safely to go on its way.
My Lords, I will not prolong our proceedings for longer than one minute. Last year I tabled amendments to delete the previous government proposal on a religious hatred offence in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Like many noble Lords, and in concert with so many others in the country who oppose this Bill in principle, I would have preferred not to have had it. The creation of a religious hatred offence in any form is fraught with difficulty, as we have discussed many times. However, the Government are determined and in that light I support the amendments passed by this House last October, introducing substantial safeguards for free speech and religious freedom.
Despite the fact that we have reached a compromise, the Government remain obdurate. I understand that, during negotiations held over recent weeks, the Government's idea of a compromise is to propose amendments that achieve the same results we saw in the original Bill, but using slightly different wording. Is this what the Government always aim to achieve when they offer consultation and negotiations?
I am very glad my own party has remained firm. Together with my noble friend Lord Hunt I hope we will continue to do so if this Bill comes back here changed by the Government in another place, ignoring the amendment that was passed, I remind your Lordships, with a majority of 90 in this House.
My Lords, I object to the read-across, the point taken by the right reverend Prelate and taken by me when I first divided the House on this matter. Therefore I shall abstain, not only for that reason, but for other reasons I have mentioned.
My Lords, in my view the noble Baroness has conducted this matter with great skill and devotion. If one is examining detail, which is what was being examined in the later stages of the Bill's progress through this House, one cannot do so as if it were the whole House. One has to make an arrangement for people to come along and express their views, and those who did so are to be thanked on our behalf for taking part in the discussions. As the noble Baroness has said, we shall all have a chance to see what is decided in the other place, and also to see how these decisions came to be reached in the other place, in due course. For my part, I am content to wait for that, in the mean time thanking those who have taken part for the progress that has so far been made.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.