§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 22, line 27, leave out
'of, or association with members of,'and insert '(or presumed membership) of .
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 17 and 160. 893 No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,' .
Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
No. 11, in clause 33, page 26, line 9, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.
Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108.
§ Mr. StrawI am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has just sat down on the Treasury Bench; now that he is present, the standard of debate should, as ever, rise to meet his—always high—standard. You know that from personal experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; my right hon. Friend's reputation goes before him.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and the equivalent amendments relating to Scotland—amendments Nos. 102, 103, 107 and 108—are designed to clarify the test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences. In Committee, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), undertook to consider the sort of case in which, for example, a Bangladeshi was the victim of hostility that was intended to be directed at a Pakistani. Those who commit many racially aggravated offences and who go in for acts of racial hatred are typically so ignorant that they see the colour of someone's skin, or their general appearance, and dismiss them as, for example, "Pakis" or other such horrible insults, without knowing from which racial or religious group they come.
We are determined that no perpetrator of racist attacks should escape proper conviction and punishment because of the perpetrator's ignorance about the victim's racial group. Our amendments in this group will put the issue beyond doubt, and we are grateful to Opposition Members for raising the matter in Committee.
Our amendments make it clear that, whatever racial group the perpetrator believes the victim to be from, an offence will be racially aggravated if racial hostility or motivation is proved. That should partly deal with the concern which has been expressed to me outside the House concerning the example of a woman who happens to be white, but who is Muslim, who is wearing a chador—a religious face-covering—and who is the subject of racial abuse and racial attack on the grounds that she is a Pakistani. The fact that she turns out to be a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani Muslim will be no defence if racial hostility or motivation is proved, which I suggest it almost always will be.
I now turn to amendment No. 160 and the equivalent amendment relating to Scotland, amendment No. 103. We have continually made it clear that we are as wholly opposed to religiously motivated violence and harassment as we are to racially motivated violence and harassment. The Bill does not protect some groups and not others; it protects everyone from racist crimes.
In Committee, several hon. Members asked whether the offences described in the Bill would cover attacks made by, for example, Muslims.
§ Mr. ClappisonOn Muslims.
§ Mr. StrawI am so sorry; I meant "made on Muslims".
The Government are aware of the concerns of some religious groups, especially Muslim organisations. Last week, I met Muslim community leaders to discuss that 894 issue, as I have done many times. Naturally, they are worried about the way in which the words that were originally in the Race Relations Act 1976, which were replicated in the Public Order Act 1986 and which are now in the Bill, have been judicially interpreted, not least in the case—although it was a non-criminal case—of Mandla v. Dowell Lee, a decision of the House of Lords in 1983.
We believe that, in practice, most—in my judgment, almost all—cases that appear to have a religious element will also have a racial element. When the perpetrators of these offences, for example, attack Muslims, they do not generally do so because of hostility to the tenets of Islam. I suggest that, in almost every case, they will be wholly ignorant of the tenets of Islam. They make their attacks because of racial hostility towards the victim and towards the ethnic minority groups that are associated with the Muslim faith in this country.
The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. It follows that, even if there is religious hostility, provided part of the hostility is racist, the offence will be covered by the provisions.
I took account of the representations made to me last week, and I examined carefully the transcripts of the debates in Committee last week. I believe that we should make it even clearer in the Bill that people charged with these offences cannot claim that they were motivated by religious, and not racial, hatred. For that reason, we have tabled amendment No. 160, which states:
It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) … above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on … the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or … any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.7 pmUnder the clause, as drafted to include those important assertions, even if religious hostility is the principal or main trigger for the hostility, as long as there is some racial element—I suggest that that will be present in almost every case—the offence will be proved, and a conviction should follow. I am only too familiar with the kind of racial harassment and attacks that are suffered by the Muslim community, and I believe that this amendment will cover almost every circumstance in which Muslims are victims.
I am aware of the provisions of amendment No. 10, to which the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), spoke, and to which the Liberal Democrats have appended their names. The amendment seeks to insert the word "religion" after "race". As I think the supporters of the amendment accept, including that single word would significantly extend the terms of this group of racially motivated offences to cover religiously motivated offences generally.
We do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward legislation in due course to cover religiously motivated offences in the same way as we are covering racially motivated offences, even where the principal motivation is religious. However, this area requires careful consideration.
For example, the issue of whether someone belongs to a particular racial group, as defined initially in the Race Relations Act 1976 and subsequently, can be subject to 895 an objective test. It is a matter which can be proved by external evidence. It is better defined in clause 28(2), which states:
In this section 'racial group"'—it is a pretty wide definition—means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.It is obviously much more difficult to define whether someone is a member of a religious group, which involves a subjective as well as an objective test. That does not mean that it may not be a candidate for future legislation, but it makes the matter more complicated.I know that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition, is about to respond. I gently remind the Opposition that, despite the calls from Labour and the Liberal Democrats over many years regarding racially motivated crimes, those calls were resisted by the previous Government, often on the ground of the difficulty involved in defining such crimes. If that was difficult, it is still more difficult to define crimes that are based on religious hostility or hatred. We do not rule it out, but we point to the difficulty involved.
In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that we were establishing research on the nature and the scale of religious discrimination in order to establish the size of the problem. On 12 May, the hon. Member for Hertsmere asked whether that research would include religious attacks within the framework of the Bill. The Minister replied:
They will he considered as part of people's experience of discrimination."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1998; c. 316.]That is obviously an important part of the research. However, that research has not yet been concluded—and it could not be concluded before the Bill is likely to become law.I appreciate that the changes do not go as far as some groups would wish. However, I remind the House—and particularly those hon. Members who support amendment No. 10—that the Muslim Council of Britain, a representative group which came to see me last Tuesday, issued a statement after I had moved the amendment and the equivalent amendments for Scotland.
The council said that it welcomed my decision to table the amendment, and also the guidance that we shall publish along with the Bill. It went on:
Although the questions of religious discrimination and vilification need to be addressed fully, the British Muslim community feels greatly encouraged by the vision and leadership displayed for the first time by the government. We view this amendment as a small but significant first step towards the economic, social and political inclusion of the Muslim community in the national life".I record my thanks to the Muslim Council of Britain for those remarks. Given my comments and the important clarification provided by the Government amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 10.
§ Mr. ClappisonI have listened carefully to the Home Secretary's important speech, and I am grateful for the care that he has brought to the subject. As was evident to 896 all those who are familiar with the way in which it was dealt with in Committee, the matter has been handled sensitively by all sides. We share common objectives: it is a question not of whether we should do what we can to combat racial and religious attacks, but of how we will do so.
I welcome the Home Secretary's comments about amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They improve the Bill and will deal with the situation that arises when a person from one racial group is attacked by someone who believes that that person belongs to a different racial group. The amendments take the matter a little further and will cover certain cases. We welcome that move.
I listened to what the Home Secretary said about amendment No. 10, and I am not sure that I can extend as warm a welcome to those remarks—although I appreciate the care that the Home Secretary has brought to the subject. I shall reply gently to the Home Secretary's comments about the previous Government's approach to racial attacks. It has long been established in law that a racial element of a case is an aggravating feature, and the courts regard it as such. There is strong authority—including recent authority given during the lifetime of the last Parliament by Lord Justice Taylor—that racial attacks should be regarded as an aggravating feature by the courts.
That system applied across the board to all types of offences where there was a racial feature. It was not a question of whether a racial element should be regarded as an aggravating feature—that has always been the case. The Government have their own view about how that should be achieved, and the Bill marks a change in the way in which the law deals with racial attacks. Instead of the question whether a racial element is being decided by the judge in all cases, as at present, the Bill would put that question into the hands of the jury in certain cases.
It is a slightly wider application, and I shall not go far down this road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to return, gently, a point the Home Secretary made to me. As the Government are minded to change the way in which the courts approach racial attacks, why do they not go the step further that we suggested in our earlier amendments and include all offences, including the most serious offences of personal violence and public order that are not currently included in the Bill? 1 am straying slightly from the main subject, but I wanted to respond to the Home Secretary's point.
That is not the point at issue in amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which reflect the fact that, as the Bill stands, offences committed because of hostility towards religion rather than race are not regarded as having aggravated features for the purposes of the Bill. We believe that offences committed against individuals because of their religion are every bit as evil as offences committed against individuals because of their race; and that both are extremely evil.
To attack people because they are wearing a hejab or sporting a beard is every bit as evil as attacking people because they are black or brown. Many would say that there is not a great deal of similarity between those factual circumstances, but the key distinction for the purposes of the Bill as it stands is whether the attack is motivated by racial hostility or religious hostility. Racial hostility is covered by the Bill, but religious hostility is not.
897 From what he said, it is evident that the Home Secretary is mindful of that problem, and sympathetic to attempts to deal with it. I listened carefully to his description of the Government amendment, which we have been considering since it was tabled. As the Home Secretary said, its intention is to make it clear that, even where there may be a religious element in a specific crime, if the hostility is even partly racist it will be covered by the Bill. We regard the amendment as an attempt by the Government to move in the right direction, but we fear that, in practice and in effect, they have not moved far, if at all.
Without the Government amendment, it is clear on the face of the Bill that offences that are motivated "wholly or partly" by hostility towards a racial group are covered by the Bill, so, unamended, it already covers matters encompassed by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment does not take matters a great deal—or, on reflection, I would have to say, any—further. In Committee, both the Opposition and the Government accepted that, where there is even a partial racial motivation, offences that have a mixed religious and racial motivation will be covered by the Bill. The amendment might be designed to make that more explicit, but it is already the effect in law, so the amendment is little more than a restatement of the Bill's existing provisions.
The Home Secretary said that, in his judgment, in many of the cases involving a religious motive, if not in almost all, there would also be a racial motive. I am not entirely convinced that that is true. It is necessary to go further and cover cases where there is an entirely religious motive and no racial motive.
Sadly, attacks are made on people purely and exclusively because of their religion. The Bill as it stands will not cover the case referred to by the Home Secretary, of the white woman wearing a hejab, which was related in a recent briefing meeting that I attended. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case would be covered if the person attacking the white woman wearing the hejab thought that she was Bangladeshi. That might be so, but cases where that is not so—where the attacker knows that the woman is white and attacks her purely because she is wearing that badge of religious identity—will not be covered by the Bill. I put it to the Home Secretary that the same would apply whatever the racial or ethnic origin of the person attacked, solely because they were wearing a badge of religious identity.
Our concern is that, even with the amendment, the Bill will not cover those cases in which a person is attacked purely because of that person's religion, and where there is no racial motive for the attack. The Home Secretary cannot tell the House that such cases will be covered by the Bill. We fear that, if it is not amended, we shall create all sorts of anomalies, whether actual or perceived, and potential sources of injustice.
The Government are aware that the courts have judged Sikhs to have the characteristics of a single ethnic group, whereas Muslims come from many different ethnic groups; it follows that any offence committed against a Sikh will automatically be covered by the provisions, but that an offence against a Muslim will not necessarily be covered. We are in danger of creating a sense of injustice. The Home Secretary knows that there is widespread concern—especially among the Muslim community 898 because of the variety of ethnic backgrounds from which Muslims are drawn, but among other communities as well—about that possible source of anomaly and injustice.
7.15 pm
I appreciate that the Government are not closing the door on this matter for the future, but we are concerned about the state of law now. To pass the Bill, even amended, would risk creating anomalies and injustices. In addition, the courts might be left with many practical difficulties. It is not satisfactory for the Government to proceed in this way and to create new categories of racially aggravated offences, while leaving out the question of religion. We would prefer that the two issues be dealt with together. The law would be in a better state if they were.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's remarks on this important subject, which is of interest to many people. We appreciate his efforts, and the care and sensitivity that he has brought to the issue, but we have to say that the amendment he describes will not remedy the problems that we identified in Committee. The amendment does not take matters a great deal, if any, further, and the Bill is not satisfactory as it stands. Because we do not want to pass a potentially bad law that could be the source of anomalies and grievance, we shall seek to press this matter to a vote.
§ Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)I rise to speak on a matter that is of real concern in my constituency. On the streets of Slough, young Asians attack and maim each other; the excuse for that street-gang violence is that one side is Sikh and the other is Muslim.
I am deeply concerned about an unintended consequence of the Bill. I have entered into extensive correspondence with the Home Office and with my local police force on the effect of the Mandla v. Dowell Lee judgment, which suggests that one side in that street warfare could be classified as a racial group, whereas the other might not. In the words of my local police superintendent when writing to me:
You and I know how fragile an issue this is locally and it seems most undesirable that this piece of legislation should unwittingly make it more so.I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment, which will deal with part of the problem. I was glad to hear him declare tonight that he has an open mind on the future. However, I should be more reassured if he could give me three assurances.
First, it is clear that it is not intended that the Bill should bear more on one side of the street violence than on the other, so would my right hon. Friend agree to monitor charges and sentences in such cases in communities such as Slough? There are, thankfully, few areas where such incidents occur, but in places such as Slough, Hounslow and Southall, where such cases have occurred, sentences and charges should be monitored.
Secondly, if the result of that monitoring suggests that the impact is bearing unfairly on the Muslim community—I am reassured at present because the police are blamed by both the Sikh and the Muslim communities for being unfair, which suggests that the police may have got it right—or on one community more than the other, I hope that the open mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary declared at the beginning of his speech 899 will swiftly be brought to bear on the issue. Such an outcome is clearly not what is intended as a result of legislation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider legislation to protect religious groups in the same way as racial groups are protected by the Bill.
Thirdly, could the guidance to which my right hon. Friend has referred include advice to the Crown Prosecution Service about how to treat cases such as the ones that arise in my community?
I believe that if I had the three assurances for which I ask I could say to both of the street gangs, which try to make their violence respectable, that the Bill will not make things uneven but will help us, as indeed the whole Bill does, in preventing youth violence on our streets.
§ Mr. StrawBy way of an intervention, I give my hon. Friend the explicit assurances that she seeks in respect of each of the three points that she raised.
§ Fiona MactaggartI have finished.
§ Mr. AllanWe welcome the new offences that are set out in the Bill, and for which we have called for a long time. We particularly welcome the fact that the Government were open to extending the offences to those of criminal damage. The issue was raised by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia in another place. The Government have been open to the issues raised and expressions of genuine concern. We welcome also the amendments that have been tabled in response to various matters that have been put to the Government by various groups and by hon. Members.
We share the concern of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the Bill as it stands still does not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman referred to specific instances such as the white woman who has a badge of Muslim identity on her and is attacked. I could refer to other instances of conflict between religious groups where the members of each are clearly of the same ethnicity. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned groups of Sikhs and Muslims fighting one another. People in Scotland have experience of instances of violence between Catholics and Protestants, which can destroy communities in the same way as inter-racial violence, but which I believe would not be covered by the Bill.
§ Ms KeebleDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that while this is an extremely difficult issue and that it is often difficult to determine between religious and racial groupings and identities, we quite often find—I speak from experience in having dealt with such matters—that women who take on the clothing, or other things that are associated with a particular ethnic group, might be attacked on a racial basis in a vile way? They are seen to be the partners, or whatever, of men from a different ethnic group. It is a particularly obnoxious and vile form of attack which quite a number of women experience.
§ Mr. AllanI agree with the hon. Lady that it is an obnoxious form of attack. I am reassured to an extent that, in some cases, it will be covered by legislation. Our concern is about the cleverness of defence lawyers—after 900 all, they are paid to be clever. Our concern is that a lawyer could take a defence case into court, a white woman is put up in the witness stand, and the defence lawyer could say, "Look, that individual is white, how can there be any form of racially aggravated assault?" The court and the jury are likely to concur with that. That is our concern. Where these instances occur, defence lawyers will use, as they are paid to do, every tool at their disposal. We are keen to ensure that those tools are not available and that in instances of religiously motivated offences, where there is no obvious racial element for the court to perceive, we are able similarly to take severe action to limit damaging assaults, which are often caused by some of the most reprehensible people in society.
We are grateful to the work of organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain for bringing these matters to our attention, and to other groups such as the Sikhs and the Jews, which have supported the Muslims, even though technically they are covered at present. There has been a broad-based alliance in pushing these matters forward.
We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service represents the acid test. The staff of the CPS will have to operate the new laws once they are introduced. The current distinctions do not give them the necessary tools to operate in every circumstance, although they will have the tools to operate in the large majority of cases.
I take issue with the Home Secretary's contention that there is an objective test of race. All definitions of race are vague at best and are quite clumsy tools. In a multicultural society where we have gradations of race and gradations of cultural difference as people properly mix, integrate and take on different cultural norms, traditional notions of race are highly inadequate.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, to which we put our names, includes the idea of religion within a definition of race and is in itself a clumsy tool. However, we believe that it is as good an approximation as any in terms of giving the CPS the tools that it needs, which is the focus that we have all the time. It should have the ability to take the bigots who cause offensive acts of violence and other damage on individuals to court and to make the charges stick. The inclusion of religion will give the CPS the tool that it needs to cover all instances of racially or religiously motivated violence, rather than the 90 or 95 per cent. that I think the Home Secretary might assure us are covered by the Government amendments. We want 100 per cent.
We believe that amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would take us to a position where every instance of racially or religiously motivated assaults, in whatever form and in whatever division between the race element and the religious element, would successfully be prosecuted by the CPS. The House will then have sent the bigots the message, a message which they will have plenty of time to think on as they serve the sentences that they will rightly be handed down.
§ Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)I am glad to be able to speak briefly in the debate. I welcome the clauses that create the new offence of racial aggravation. I have a specific constituency reason for wanting to do so.
On Second Reading, I brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the case of a Cambridge United supporter who was caught chanting racial abuse. Unfortunately, the Crown Prosecution 901 Service was not able to bring a case against him on a criminal charge under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 because he was chanting abuse by himself and not with others. In the end, a case was brought against him under the Public Order Act 1986, which resulted in his being banned from football matches for two years. Although that is a serious punishment for him, it is not the punishment which I think he deserves.
Cambridge United has always taken racism seriously and has done everything to educate youngsters as well as taking tough action when it finds racism occurring. It has been involved in campaigns such as "kick racism out of football" and "give racism the red card". When it receives complaints from members of the public about foul language and racial abuse, it takes action. On the occasion to which I have referred an undercover operation was mounted during a game at which Cambridge United was at home playing Scarborough and fielding four black players. The spectators observed the hurling of threatening and abusive language at both players and spectators.
I believe—I hope that my right hon. Friend will put me right if I am wrong—that clauses 31 and 32 would enable a spectator behaving in that way to be charged under the Public Order Act 1986 for the new offence of racial aggravation. I think that all my constituents would welcome that. It would certainly be welcomed by Cambridge United.
§ Mr. MalinsIt is customary in court, as a witness is sworn in, for the usher to ask the witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" Depending on the answer, the appropriate oath is administered. The House will be intrigued to hear that only a fortnight ago I was sitting in court hearing a case judicially when a witness was wheeled into court and the usher asked that witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" The witness replied, "No, I don't. I am Church of England." It was difficult to know which oath should be administered.
The difficulty with this area, which the House might as well admit, is that there will be problems for the courts if we stray into individual preferences, whether they be religious or racial, or in respect of individual states. When one category—race, for example—is covered, it is difficult to resist the pressure for the floodgates to open so that two, three, four or many more categories may be considered.
7.30 pm
I foresee difficulties for judges in directing juries. Whether or not something was spelt out in statute, judges would be able to take into account all the circumstances of a case, such as an aggravating factor, when deciding on sentence; indeed, they always do so. It could be dangerous for hon. Members to list too many sections of our society that might need special or individual attention.
The Bill covers racial hostility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, but not religious hostility. Although the Home Secretary pointed to support for what he said from a particular group, hon. Members should know that the Pakistan Welfare Association, which is a major force, has contacted me through the many people I know in it. It urges hon. Members to support amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and would 902 insert the word "religion" in the Bill. For those reasons, it is only proper that hon. Members support our amendment.
§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)I support amendment No. 10. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who rightly said that there would be racial discrimination in almost every case where there was religious discrimination. I am sure that that is statistically correct, and that he earnestly believes it to be correct. I am also sure that it is correct in respect of his constituency and of mine, which is where he has his home, but it is not correct in respect of the place that I come from.
I shall speak briefly about the situation in the west of Scotland, where there is no racial difference in one section of the population, but a significant religious difference between Catholics and Protestants. It is well known in every community who is a Catholic and who is a Protestant, not only because of the football teams that people support, but because of the schools that they attend. There is certainly antagonism there.
I know of a young man who was attacked by supporters of the opposing side when travelling home from a football match about 18 months ago. The teams were, of course, Rangers and Celtic, and the attack took place in the centre of Glasgow. The young man, who was 17, was murdered. That was not football hooliganism—far from it; the attack was religious bigotry. I am sure that the Home Secretary will understand the point that I am making: if they do not accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will send the wrong message. They should be sending the message that religious discrimination and intolerance are every bit as bad as racial discrimination and intolerance.
Speaking of intolerance, I appreciate that I must be brief, because the football supporters and people of differing religions to whom I have referred will be united this evening, just as hon. Members from both sides of the House—and perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will be united in their antagonism to the citizens of Morocco. I mean that in the nicest possible sporting sense.
§ Mr. StrawThis has been a brief but important debate. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who represents my home area in Essex, to get away because of other events. She may not be alone in that, and I should say to her that we welcome allcomers in that part of Essex, including Celtic and Rangers supporters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked whether racial chanting by one person could be a public order offence under clause 31. The answer is yes, it could—if it met the test of "harassment, alarm or distress". It would not be a football offence, but it certainly would be an offence. I hope that that gives her some assurance.
Considerable reference has been made to the way in which the courts have defined racial groups. Clause 28 uses the words
race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.903 The leading authority in respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is Mandla v. Dowell Lee. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said:The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long-shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups and … (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.He added other categories which were not essential, but relevant. He added:A group defined by reference to enough of these characteristics would be capable of including converts, for example, people who marry into the group, and of excluding apostates.The definition judicially determined, which appears in clause 28, does not exclude religious groups or converts into them. I understand the difficulty in respect of the Muslim community, and I hope and believe that the Government amendments go a long way to meeting the concerns.I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who represented her ethnic origins, that we of course recognise the case for laws dealing with religious discrimination and hatred. We are giving it active consideration, but we need to give such offences the same careful consideration that we have given to these offences. For those reasons, and no others, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
§
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 17, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (1)(a) above—
membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed" means presumed by the offender.'.
No. 160, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on—
§ Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 268.
906| Division No. 313] | [7.38 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Brake, Tom |
| Amess, David | Brazier, Julian |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Breed, Colin |
| Arbuthnot, James | Brooke, Rt Hon Peter |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Browning, Mrs Angela |
| Ballard, Jackie | Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) |
| Bercow, John | Burns, Simon |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) |
| Blunt, Crispin | Chope, Christopher |
| Body, Sir Richard | Clappison, James |
| Boswell, Tim | Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Collins, Tim |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Cormack, Sir Patrick |
| Brady, Graham | Cotter, Brian |
| Cran, James | MacKay, Andrew |
| Curry, Rt Hon David | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) | Maples, John |
| Day, Stephen | Maude, Rt Hon Francis |
| Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Duncan, Alan | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Moss, Malcolm |
| Evans, Nigel | Norman, Archie |
| Faber, David | Oaten, Mark |
| Fabricant, Michael | Ottaway, Richard |
| Fallon, Michael | Page, Richard |
| Feam, Ronnie | Paice, James |
| Flight, Howard | Paterson, Owen |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Prior, David |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Randall, John |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Rendel, David |
| Fraser, Christopher | Robathan, Andrew |
| Gale, Roger | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
| Garnier, Edward | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Ruffley, David |
| Gibb, Nick | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Sanders, Adrian |
| Gray, James | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Greenway, John | Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| Grieve, Dominic | Shepherd, Richard |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) |
| Hammond, Philip | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Soames, Nicholas |
| Hawkins, Nick | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Hayes, John | Spring, Richard |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Streeter, Gary |
| Horam, John | Stunell, Andrew |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Swayne, Desmond |
| Hunter, Andrew | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Jack, Rt Hon Michael | Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) |
| Johnson Smith, | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Tredinnick, David |
| Laing, Mrs Eleanor | Trend, Michael |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Lansley, Andrew | Wallace, James |
| Leigh, Edward | Waterson, Nigel |
| Letwin, Oliver | Whittingdale, John |
| Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) | Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann |
| Lidington, David | Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Wilkinson, John |
| Livsey, Richard | Willetts, David |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Woodward, Shaun |
| Loughton, Tim | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Luff, Peter | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Sir David Madel and |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Mrs. Caroline Spelman. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Ainger, Nick | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Alexander, Douglas | Berry, Roger |
| Allen, Graham | Blackman, Liz |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Blizzard, Bob |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Borrow, David |
| Ashton, Joe | Bradley, Keith (Withington) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) |
| Banks, Tony | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Battle, John | Brinton, Mrs Helen |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) |
| Browne, Desmond | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Healey, John |
| Burden, Richard | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Byers, Stephen | Hesford, Stephen |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Hill, Keith |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Canavan, Dennis | Hoey, Kate |
| Cann, Jamie | Home Robertson, John |
| Caplin, Ivor | Hood, Jimmy |
| Caton, Martin | Hope, Phil |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Clapham, Michael | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Clark, Dr Lynda | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Hurst, Alan |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hutton, John |
| Clelland, David | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Clwyd, Ann | Illsley, Eric |
| Coaker, Vernon | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Colman, Tony | Jamieson, David |
| Connarty, Michael | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Cooper, Yvette | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Jowell, Ms Tessa |
| Cranston, Ross | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Crausby, David | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Kemp, Fraser |
| Dalyell, Tam | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Kidney, David |
| Darvill, Keith | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Davidson, Ian | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly) | Laxton, Bob |
| Dawson, Hilton | Lepper, David |
| Dewar, Rt Hon Donald | Levitt, Tom |
| Dismore, Andrew | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Dobbin, Jim | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Livingstone, Ken |
| Doran, Frank | Lock, David |
| Dowd, Jim | Love, Andrew |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Edwards, Huw | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Efford, Clive | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | McFall, John |
| Ennis, Jeff | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | McIsaac, Shona |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Flint, Caroline | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Follett, Barbara | McLeish, Henry |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | MacShane, Denis |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Foulkes, George | McWalter, Tony |
| Gapes, Mike | McWilliam, John |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Gerrard, Neil | Marek, Dr John |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Godsiff, Roger | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Goggins, Paul | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Grant, Bernie | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Martlew, Eric |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Maxton, John |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Meale, Alan |
| Grocott, Bruce | Merron, Gillian |
| Gunnell, John | Michael, Alun |
| Hain, Peter | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Milburn, Alan |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | Miller, Andrew |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hanson, David | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Sheerman, Barry |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) | Singh, Marsha |
| Morley, Elliot | Skinner, Dennis |
| Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Mudie, George | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Mullin, Chris | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Snape, Peter |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Soley, Clive |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Norris, Dan | Speller, John |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Olner, Bill | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Osbome, Ms Sandra | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Stringer, Graham |
| Pendry, Tom | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Pickthall, Colin | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Pope, Greg | (Dewsbury) |
| Pound, Stephen | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Tipping, Paddy |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Todd, Mark |
| Purchase, Ken | Touhig, Don |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Radice, Giles | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Rammell, Bill | Vaz, Keith |
| Rapson, Syd | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Raynsford, Nick | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Rooker, Jeff | Wareing, Robert N |
| Rooney, Terry | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Ross, Emie (Dundee W) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Rowlands, Ted | Wilson, Brian |
| Roy, Frank | Winnick, David |
| Ruane, Chris | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Ruddock, Ms Joan | Wood, Mike |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Worthington, Tony |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Savidge, Malcolm | |
| Sawford, Phil | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Mr. Clive Betts and |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Mr. Jon Owen Jones. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.