---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

This has been a fascinating debate. It has been most enjoyable to sit through. We heard two maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) made a speech of immense power and immense sincerity, and I am sure that he will make a great mark on the House. When I first entered this place, someone told me that being in the House of Commons was rather like being on a cruise ship. One was completely isolated; there were function rooms to which one could go; one could go on deck and watch the sea passing by; but one was hermetically sealed off from everyone else. I only hope that we are not about to strike an iceberg, like the Titanic. I trust that that will not be our collective fate. The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) made a delightful speech. I am glad to note that the new orthodoxy of the Labour party is moving towards a greater appreciation of nuclear power, although the hon. Gentleman may well have to persuade some of his colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that the Public Order Act 1986, as currently applied, is already having a powerful effect in curbing and setting limits to religious discourse. Street preachers are now routinely being hauled in, whether in my right hon. Friend’s constituency or mine, on the basis that what they are saying in the street might be insulting to those on the receiving end—even when what they are saying is no more than that someone will go to hell if that person does not share their view. I do not want to become involved in that particular debate, but I will make one point, because it is immensely important. If we are talking of setting limits on what might formerly have been thought to be very important freedoms, the Public Order Act as it stands—along with the religiously aggravated nature of offences—is going a long way towards doing that. Some of what is being done even causes me some disquiet. I do not want the Act to be changed, but I think that the House should bear that in mind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made similar points. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a powerful speech against the Bill. I can answer one of his points immediately. As the law stands, and as we have made it in the last 12 months, anyone can carry out a citizen’s arrest of anyone on the basis of suspicion that that person has committed any offence. I ask the House to reflect on how that will operate under the Bill. It will be open to anyone to arrest any person whom he considers to fall foul of the legislation that we are about to pass. That will apply irrespective of whether the Attorney-General subsequently decides to bring a prosecution. The fact that the Bill is so widely drawn must mean that people will—technically, or at least allegedly—frequently commit offences. There will not even be the mechanism of redress for wrongful arrest because, even if the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, it will not be capable of being argued that the arrest was wrongful. We will undoubtedly have to return to that issue in Committee, but it was a powerful point, well made. It highlights what I think are the absurdities underlying the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly said, the Government do not understand their own Bill and that precisely illustrates the point. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a powerful speech. I am familiar with his community and its diversity. I share his desire that we should all try to use temperate language about each other, but the Bill will not achieve that end and has many vices. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made a powerful speech in respect of wishing to maintain freedom of expression. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) shared the disquiet about the impact of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) was concerned about the BNP but, as I pointed out, I think that the BNP is likely to be a net beneficiary of the Bill if it decides to set itself up as a religious sect, because it will be able to claim the protection of the legislation.