Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, in preparation, I read the previous 10 maiden speeches made in the House of Lords—a peculiar form of masochism—from the noble Lord, Lord Alliance, to my noble friend Lord Moonie. Unlike the other place, where maiden speakers usually give a wonderful account of their predecessor and tours of their constituency, I notice that here maidens are punctuated by references to how pleasant everyone is when we arrive here. I can confirm that, particularly with reference to the staff and Members, including Members opposite—at least until today. However, there is one cautionary note. I do not want this to make me feel complacent. I still believe that there is a substantive debate on the role, powers and composition of the second Chamber of Parliament—and in that order—and I hope to be able to contribute to that. The Bill puts the spotlight on some aspects of those issues. I strongly support the Bill. The reasons for supporting it were outlined well by the Lord Chancellor. It may not come as a surprise to some of my friends who know me well that I am supporting a government Bill. But the Bill was also supported brilliantly in the House of Commons by my good friend, Frank Dobson, and he is certainly not a serial government loyalist. His article in the Guardian on 18 June argues the case exceptionally well. However, the Bill was also supported in a moving and highly articulate maiden speech by the Member for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik. He outlined how he is receiving hate mail and death threats because he is a Muslim, because of his religion. That is something to which we must pay attention. I heard the discussion on the ““Today”” programme this morning. I have heard the debate today. I genuinely believe that there is a misunderstanding on what the Bill is about. That was evident when James Naughtie—albeit he was educated at Keith Grammar School, like myself—did not seem to understand what the Bill was about when he was questioning the Minister. I remind the House that the Bill was in the manifesto of the Labour Party at the last election. It is specific and narrow in its scope. It received a substantial majority in another place. As the Lord Chancellor said, in another place Opposition parties accepted that full time had been given for scrutiny in Committee and on Report. This House has twice previously thwarted legislation. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, anticipated an uncontroversial speech from me but, with respect, the goalposts seems to have been changing. First, the opponents said that they agree in principle but rejected the legislation because it was part of wider anti-terrorist legislation. Then they said that they agreed now that the measure is separate but believed that one noble Lord had a better way of articulating, describing and undertaking it than the combined wisdom of the Home Office, parliamentary draftsmen and the House of Commons. On this side of the Chamber, I think that we can be forgiven for thinking that the legislation is being opposed, if not for the sake of opposing it, certainly for some other reasons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I support the principle of the defence of individual human rights. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who rightly legislated to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic legislation. However, in my former constituency and subsequently I have seen growing concern that the pendulum may have swung too far, encouraged by some in the human rights lobby, which some have described to me as almost becoming a human rights industry. It is ironic that some of those who seem to defend the individual rights of accused terrorists are here opposing protection of ordinary law-abiding citizens from religious hatred. There has been recently an increasing challenge to the ability of the state to protect its citizens from increasing threats and increasing danger. We have a dual responsibility to protect all those who suffer or may suffer from religious hatred—not just Sikhs and Jews—as well as to protect our citizens from danger. We must not allow the pleadings of some within the legal profession, however distinguished, to detract us from that duty.