Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I am sure that the entire House will want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on that remarkable maiden speech. The noble Lord comes to your Lordships’ House with enormous experience. He was Member of Parliament for South Ayrshire and, later, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. He is an expert on matters as diverse as foreign affairs, defence and overseas development. As we all know, he was Minister of State at the Scotland Office. For football fans such as myself, I am delighted that he is chairman of Hearts and I wish him every success. I am wearing this shirt in honour of Arsenal, I am afraid. I am married to a Scot and I often tease her that the only difference between a Scotsman and a coconut is that you can at least get a drink out of a coconut. We certainly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be generous at the bar. Even more importantly, we hope that he will be as generous with his time and his ability in speaking as clearly, eloquently and as intelligently as he has been. We look forward to more contributions of that nature in the days ahead. I should inform the House that I have to give a lecture this evening in Amersham and will have to dash away, but I shall do my utmost to return for the final speeches. If I do not make it, I apologise. I wish to begin my brief intervention by identifying with the Government’s desire to oppose any form of hatred in British society. I echo the Government’s intention to strengthen social cohesion and deepen harmony among the different and rich communities that express multi-cultural Britain. That is an honourable aim and, together with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I salute that and wish to embrace it with all my heart. However, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I am troubled by the Bill and feel that, rather than strengthening the social fabric of our society, it will lead to weakening it. Indeed, it has the potential to drive a wedge between Muslim communities and the rest of us. My commitment and interest in inter-faith harmony and co-operation is well known. It began when, as an airman in the Royal Air Force in Iraq in the 1950s, I encountered Islam for the first time and began to understand it. That interest has continued throughout the years and I have built friendships with Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and other faith leaders. I continue to be involved in inter-faith matters, both in this country and abroad. I oppose the Bill not out of lack of sympathy, affection for those of other faiths or for what the Government want to achieve, but because the Bill is unclear, endangers civil liberties and raises unrealistic expectations. Central to law-making is clarity. A Bill should explain what it is seeking to do. Definitions should be clear and precise and there should be no confusion concerning its outcomes. I read the account of the debate in the House of Commons on 21 June and was amazed that the Secretary of State and others were unable to illustrate the gaps in the present legislation that would be plugged by the Bill. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having a better go at it than anyone in the debate in the House of Commons. Now, the Government may complain that we have wilfully shut our ears to their arguments, but at the very least, we should know what are the offences that the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill seeks to address. Failure to do so with precision and clarity runs the risk of misunderstanding at the least, and abuse at the most. I have already said that the Bill threatens civil liberties. British society is far from perfect, but our nation is renowned for values associated with freedom to speak our mind, freedom to worship and share our faith with others, freedom to argue, debate and challenge accepted conventions. The Government should be very worried that from many sections of our society—from actors and comedians, to clergy, church groups, community leaders and many others—fears have been raised that free speech and critical argument will be muffled if the Bill is implemented. The Government have already said that the Bill is intended to protect the minority Muslim community, as well as other faith groups. That is entirely laudable and I understand the concerns that many good Muslims have—although I remind the House that Jews are far more vulnerable in this country and in Europe than Muslims and they are supposed to be protected by existing legislation. Perhaps I may give a personal illustration of the kind of confusion that may arise if the Bill is implemented. Last spring, in Rome, I gave a lecture opposing the ““clash of civilisations”” thesis propounded by Sam Huntington. In the course of the lecture I was critical of my own Church, America, Israel in relation to Palestine, and also Muslim societies. Concerning the latter, I expressed my worries about the lack of democracy in many Muslim countries, restrictions on freedom there, and the failure of many Muslim leaders to condemn the theology behind suicide bombings. Those remarks were greeted with outrage from Muslim leaders around the world. I have been told that, under the Bill, complaints could have been made to the Attorney-General on the grounds of inciting religious hatred. I have no doubt that any careful reading of my lecture by a person of open mind would have led to the immediate dismissal of that complaint. But nevertheless, valuable police time would have been taken up by that kind of uninformed complaint. I was even named alongside others such as Polly Toynbee for the so-called Islamophobe of the Year Award by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. The defensive seeking-out of offence by such fringe groups illustrates the potential divisiveness of the Bill. I could easily imagine, under the Bill, fringe groups from other faiths and beliefs monitoring sermons in mosques and churches to try to mount a complaint under the law. One of the problems that could arise is that people of a less robust nature than me could be cowed into silence. My time has ended. Unless the Bill is revised along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, it will only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and further division.