§ 32. Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has sanctioned in each of the last two years for incitement to racial hatred under section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and how many such prosecutions were successful.
§ The Attorney-GeneralDuring the period 5 May 1979 to 4 May 1980 I did not consent to any prosecutions for offences contrary to section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936. During that same period, a total of six persons pleaded guilty or were found guilty of offences contrary to section 5A, or of offences of conspiracy to contravene section 5A.
During the period 5 May 1980 to date I have consented to the prosecution of three persons for offences contrary to section 5A, and two persons for conspiring to 684 contravene the section. During that same period, the two conspiraors have been found guilty. Proceedings under section 5A against the other three are still outstanding.
§ Mr. DubsIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in recent months there has been an alarming increase in the amount of racist literature in circulation, that some of it is as depraved as anything that was seen in Nazi Germany, and that people cannot understand why more prosecutions are not brought? If the Attorney-General is not satisfied that he has the legal powers to achieve successful prosecutions, why does he not bring to the House suggestions for amending the legislation?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI expressed my feelings about one of the publications in a recent answer. But it is not simply a matter of publication; there are other problems. Quite often the offence is extremely difficult to prove. The existence of a grossly offensive leaflet or magazine does not by itself prove the offence. There must be somebody to prosecute, an identifiable and identified publisher or distributor—in some cases the publisher appears to be in the Republic—who is not simply distributing to members of an association of which he is a member, because that is specifically excluded by the section. For example, if an anonymous door-to-door caller pushes offensive literature through letter boxes, whom can one prosecute unless one can identify the person who has done it? The other difficulty is the language of the section
having regard to all the circumstances".Often the material is put through the letter boxes of leaders of the community, offices of Jewish organisations, and so on. In such circumstances, it is impossible to say that racial hatred would be stirred up.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonI share my right hon. and learned Friend's horror at the material he mentioned. Since for centuries it has been an offence to stir up hatred between different sections of the community, does not he agree that the long-established law is enough and that the section is unnecessary? Will he review the whole of our race relations legislation?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI imagine that my hon. Friend has in mind breach of the peace. The section is important because it is essential to clamp down on such publications. I am anxious to make certain that such matters come before the courts wherever possible.
§ Mr. ArcherDoes not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) confirm that it is necessary to consider amending the section? Does not he agree that one of the problems is to establish that the words are "threatening, abusive or insulting" and that a skilful troublemaker may use words that are not "threatening, abusive or insulting" but which may be more likely to stir up racial hatred than words that are less clearly considered? Will he invite the Home Secretary to consider the point that when words are clearly intended to stir up racial hatred it should not be necessary to prove anything further?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere are two problems. The first is to find someone to prosecute, and the second has been correctly identified by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Often the person who made the complaint is, for example, a responsible leader of the community, and it is no good putting him in the witness box and saying that 685 he is likely to be stirred up by it. I shall certainly look at the matter again. We have been studying the problem. It 686 is a constant worry to me and to my Department that we are not getting the convictions that we need to stamp on trouble of this kind.