Orders of the Day — Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

House of Commons, 7 April 2005.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 57. If the House agrees to those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 4 — Establishment of Serious Organised Crime Agency

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12, 41, 42 and 48 to 56.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It may help our deliberations if I say immediately that I shall be advising the House to accept all the amendments made in the other place. In most cases I shall urge the House to accept the amendments with alacrity, given that they were Government amendments. In one instance, however—the provisions on incitement to religious hatred—I shall, with heavy heart, invite the House to agree with the Lords amendments. We shall come to that in a while; suffice it to say that we agreed to remove the incitement provisions only in the interest of securing the passage of the rest of this important legislation.

All the amendments in this group relate to part 1. Clause 10 would have given the Home Secretary a power to direct the Serious Organised Crime Agency to set itself targets to measure how well its performance fulfilled any strategic priorities determined by the Home Secretary under clause 9. That would have added to SOCA's accountability. Nevertheless, both here and in the other place the Conservative party expressed concern about the perceived political influence of the Home Secretary over SOCA. In the interests of securing consensus on the SOCA measures, we agreed that clause 10 need not stand part of the Bill. After all, the SOCA board would itself want to establish a robust performance management and assessment regime.

In the same vein, I commend the amendments to clauses 18 and 19. The amendments would also have the effect of reducing any alleged political interference in the affairs of SOCA. They remove the Home Secretary's ability to attach conditions to the payments of grants to SOCA, thereby giving the agency greater flexibility in apportioning its funds to meet the unique challenges of tackling serious organised crime in the 21st century. On the other hand, the amendment to clause 17 will ensure, reasonably, that were the Home Secretary to request Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to inspect SOCA wholly or partly in Scotland, he must consult Scottish Ministers before doing so.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 52 deal with the prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA and ensure that SOCA has access to the best possible legal advice during a criminal investigation and that the most appropriate prosecutor can be assigned to take a case to court. The new clauses inserted by the amendments extend the functions of the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the new prosecution body that is to replace the Customs and Excise Prosecution Office, so that it may also institute and conduct criminal proceedings that arise out of a criminal investigation by SOCA. That will ensure, in line with the Attorney-General's wishes, that the skills and experience that have been built both within the Crown Prosecution Service and CEPO in prosecuting serious organised crime are available to SOCA. The new clauses also provide for the issue of joint directions by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, setting down criteria for determining which prosecutor will take responsibility for any given case initiated by SOCA. Amendments Nos. 10 and 52 make technical, consequential amendments.

Amendments Nos. 12, 48 to 50 and 53 to 56 are straightforward and deal with the area of discrimination legislation as applied to persons seconded to SOCA. The sentiments behind the amendments were brought to our attention by the Police Federation, to which we are grateful. The amendments bring into one place under a single clause the discrimination legislation to provide that SOCA is liable for any act done by it in relation to persons seconded to the agency, as well as anything done by such persons in the performance or purported performance of their functions. They also expressly provide that SOCA is liable for any discriminatory acts committed by any of its secondees, be they constables or other persons.

Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 give effect to the one recommendation in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on part 1, namely, that the order-making power in clause 50 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment No. 51, which was necessary in light of the Road Safety Bill's not securing Royal Assent this Session, will allow SOCA to be included in the provisions that exempt emergency vehicles from speed limits where it is necessary in the pursuit of their functions. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which makes that exemption, will not automatically extend to SOCA, as the agency will not be a police body pursuing police purposes. The provision includes safeguards limiting the exemption to SOCA staff who are carrying out the purposes of the agency and to those who are undergoing training to do so and covering only those vehicles driven by someone who has had training to drive at high speeds.

I hope that I have outlined the Government's thinking and given an explanation of the deliberations in the other place.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

May I, in the spirit of the words of the Minister, say that the Opposition agree with these amendments and therefore we will not vote against any of them? I do not think that that will come as much of a surprise to her. She is aware from the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), that we largely agree with the Bill. Our reservations were on the issue of religious hatred. As she says, we will come to that issue shortly.

We largely support the Bill. The Minister will confirm that it has been constructively debated in Committee and in both Houses. I believe that it has been improved. It has not had added to it the constructive approach that we took on intercept evidence. That has been debated in both Houses and there have been differences of view across the political parties. We regret the fact that that provision has not been included. We also regret that the provision for 24-hour fully manned surveillance and embarkation controls at our ports, which would have brought a big improvement to immigration and customs, has not been added to the Bill, although, as the Minister will be aware, that is a Conservative pledge in the forthcoming election. Had it been included in the Bill, it would have greatly improved it.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for outlining what the amendments will achieve. In Committee, Opposition Members were keen that the agency should have operational independence and that the Home Secretary should not be able to set performance targets. We fully accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to set targets in respect of strategic performance, but not performance targets. These amendments accept our arguments.

Amendment No. 12 concerns an important issue that touches on the role of constables. The Under-Secretary knows that there was disagreement in Committee and on the Floor of the House and we remain concerned that the Bill could undermine the role of the constable. She will have heard the words of the Police Federation and we are disappointed that the words of the Conservative party and of the federation appear to have fallen on deaf ministerial ears.

The Under-Secretary has explained what the new clause is designed to do. I am grateful to her for that and, on that basis, we accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 58 — Offences to which this Chapter applies

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 46 and 57.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Again, these are mostly minor and technical amendments that relate to parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. However, I should like to bring the following amendments to the attention of the House. On powers of arrest, the amendments to schedule 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. In relation to the identification of the British tsunami casualties, dealt with in amendments Nos. 27 and 44, the House will be aware—[Interruption.]

In terms of compulsory investigative powers, in clause 58, amendments Nos. 13 to 21 create a threshold of £5,000 for certain financial offences that must be met before disclosure notices may be used. These offences include those listed under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Theft Act 1968. This will ensure that the powers introduced by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill will be used proportionately to tackle only the most serious offences.

In relation to Queen's evidence, in clause 71, amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause that ensures that any hearing to vary a sentence following an agreement by the defendant to turn Queen's evidence can be held in camera, or subject to reporting restrictions, where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. The issue was helpfully brought to our attention by the Lord Chief Justice.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

The House will understand what the Under-Secretary has just said, but can she give an assurance that any defendant will know that the scales may be turned against him? For example, if two people are accused and one turns Queen's evidence and has a session with the judge in private, will that be unnecessarily prejudicial to the other defendant, although clearly the evidence will be given properly in court?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure, requested by the Lord Chief Justice, was aimed at certain situations where it might be prejudicial to the person giving evidence if that were in open court. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make Queen's evidence more transparent than ever before so that, for prosecution and defence purposes, justice can be seen to be served. If he requires any detail on that point, I would be happy to write to him, but having a transparent system takes us a long way forward.

Clause 75 originally provided that the reports made by an offender under a financial reporting order must be at fixed intervals throughout the course of the order. The Lord Chief Justice was helpful in his suggestion and, as a consequence, amendment No. 26 would provide the sentencer with the flexibility to set different levels between reports. The change builds in a helpful degree of flexibility in the operation of these orders.

I apologise to the House for losing my place at the start of this section.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Is the Under-Secretary capable of understanding why the periods of punishment in clause 75(10) are different in different parts of the UK?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

My understanding is that the amendment was aimed at giving some flexibility. For example, financial reporting orders can operate when someone is in prison and the time between reporting orders may be different depending on when someone is released from prison. I am happy to look at that particular issue for the hon. Gentleman and get back to him.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

For the sake of clarity for those who may read our proceedings, which may not amount to a very large number, imprisonment on summary conviction is liable to a term of 51 weeks in England and Wales, 12 months in Scotland—a difference of a week—and six months in Northern Ireland. That is an odd consequence of devolution. I do not necessarily expect the Under-Secretary to be able to answer in detail now, but I think that the inconsistency will look rather peculiar.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As the hon. Gentleman says, devolution creates different systems. We discussed this in Committee at some length and we must recognise and live with it.

I have nothing more to add on this subject. As I said, at one point I lost my place, but apparently not many Members realised. [Laughter.]

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

Let me reassure the Under-Secretary that we on this side of the House were very much aware that she had lost her place and, indeed, were rather concerned that we might have been focusing on the wrong amendment ourselves, which is very easily done at this level of detail.

As the Under-Secretary said, these amendments follow the debates in another place yesterday. We very much agree that, in respect of qualifying offences, the relevant offence must be of a value of £5,000 or above. That is the right level before a disclosure notice can kick in and was argued for eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 113 — Fingerprints

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35, 43, 44, 58 to 78 and 87 to 101.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have already said that the amendments to schedules 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. Amendments Nos. 27 and 44 are intended to deal with a particular problem that we faced in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami with the identification of British casualties. As hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22 March that we currently estimate that there were 169 British casualties of the tsunami who were either killed in the disaster or who remain unaccounted for. We believe that it may be possible to identify a small number of those victims by cross-checking DNA samples and fingerprints taken from the deceased against the national DNA and fingerprint databases. These amendments would enable such checks to take place.

I am sure that the House would agree that we should do all that we can to help the relatives and friends of the victims of this terrible natural disaster by speeding up the identification of those victims by whatever means possible. I make it clear to the House that the amendments are not specific to the tsunami and would enable samples from any unidentified body to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for identification purposes.

The amendments to schedule 8 are designed to ensure that chief officers have greater flexibility when conferring powers on community support officers. As the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 are currently constructed, where a chief officer confers a power on a CSO to require a person's name and address, he must also confer on that CSO a power to detain for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. We believe that chief officers should be able to confer the power to require name and address without the power to detain. These amendments provide such flexibility so that CSO powers can be tailored to meet local needs under the direction of chief officers.

The other matter that I bring to the attention of the House relates to Parliament square. It was evident on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that there was passionate feeling on the issue on both sides of the House. [Interruption] Yes, there was passion from you as well, Mr. Speaker. Whether hon. Members are for or against what we are proposing to do, they cannot deny that there has been a great deal of discussion about it.

We have tried to listen to concerns. We still believe that, for the reasons that we have outlined in numerous debates, we have to move forward to deal with the area appropriately. I reiterate what I have said on many occasions: we are not trying to prevent people from protesting, and we are certainly not trying to stop them doing it in Parliament square, but we think that there should be a framework of conditions. We are aware of the concerns about notification and those about Trafalgar square.

As Baroness Scotland assured those in the other place, in exercising the order-making power in clause 135 we will ensure that Trafalgar square is excluded. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification of the Commissioner.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Why will this matter be left to ministerial discretion? Why cannot the Bill firmly state that the distance to Trafalgar square is specific, and the square will always be available for the sort of traditional demonstrations we have all experienced over the years? I am sure that the Minister has taken part in important demonstrations there, and certainly many of her colleagues have done so. Why cannot we make the provision specific, instead of leaving the question to the discretion of future Ministers? One day there may be a Minister from another party who is less open-minded on the issue than the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There is an order-making power, so the matter will return to the House. The hon. Gentleman is right: I have taken part in numerous demonstrations over the years. However, I also remember only too well when I was not allowed to demonstrate in Parliament square but was stuck on the other side of Westminster bridge and not allowed to go any further. We should acknowledge that the opportunity to demonstrate in Parliament square is not particularly old, and that we are trying to ensure that that right still exists. The commissioner will not be able to refuse anyone the right to demonstrate in Parliament square, but conditions will be attached. That has been made clear both in correspondence and discussion, in Committee and in the other place.

Amendment No. 30 responds to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report in February about the requirement to give at least six days' notice of any demonstration. We recognise that there should be provision for a shorter notice period in exceptional circumstances. The amendment therefore provides that where it is impracticable to give six days' notice, notification may be given not less than 24 hours before the start time of the demonstration.

Amendment No. 35 allows the Metropolitan police to give authorisation for a demonstration by fax or e-mail if organisers agree. This is particularly relevant if an organiser is unable to give six days' notice for the demonstration.

The other amendments in this group are minor technical amendments. I hope that what I have said at least demonstrates that, on a hotly debated issue, we have listened and suggested amendments. The fact that the House of Lords, where there was also strong feeling about this issue, accepted them shows what progress we have made on this issue of concern.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

This is a sensible group of amendments and I need not detain the House for long. I just want to pick up on two points that the Minister made. The first is about amendment No. 30, which deals with Parliament square. Although there are passionate views on both sides of the argument on both sides of the House, the debate was informed by a Select Committee report. There was a unanimous view in the Committee that something needed to be done about the situation—if I may describe it in that neutral way—outside the Carriage Gates in Parliament square.

We support the thrust of amendment No. 30 and accept that in normal circumstances six days' notice is not unreasonable, but where it is unreasonable, 24 hours is the right period. We are grateful to the Government for accepting that argument, which we put clearly in Committee.

I turn now to amendment No. 64. We have some doubts about the drafting, but we are inevitably concerned, as we said in Committee, about what I would call function creep for police community support officers. We want to emphasise that while we do not oppose the amendments, we think it essential that proper detailed independent analysis be done on the work that CSOs carry out; any form of function creep without that proper evaluation is unwise, and in that case the Government should think again. With that small reservation, we are happy to support the amendments.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I welcome the amendments, but in doing so I still find it dispiriting that on the last day of this parliamentary Session we are restricting our constituents' rights to demonstrate in Parliament square. I accept that the amendments will make demonstrating easier than the Government originally intended. We look forward to the details of the order that will ensure that Trafalgar square is not included in this legislation in a way that would allow future Governments, perhaps capriciously advised by the police, to restrict demonstrations there.

In most of the debates, people have detailed their experiences of demonstrating in Parliament square and Trafalgar square, but I have not yet done so. We all have a bit of form on these matters. I have been arrested on demonstrations in both Trafalgar square and Parliament square, and on both occasions I was not prosecuted. In fact, on one occasion I was represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I received compensation from the Metropolitan police for wrongful arrest. I just wanted to get my form on the record as well. [Interruption.] I heard from the Whips some form of expression of regret that I was not detained for longer, and I can appreciate that.

In interpreting this legislation we must be clear that the proposals may in some way limit the right to demonstrate in Parliament square. As the Minister said—it needs reiterating—no police officer or Metropolitan Police Commissioner can refuse authority to demonstrate in Parliament square.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill that provides that there is to be a restriction on the number of applications from an individual, or a group of individuals, to demonstrate in Parliament square. The amendments make it reasonably practicable, therefore, for an individual to submit applications on a regular basis, even by fax or e-mail, to demonstrate in Parliament square, so I hope that Brian Haw has obtained a fax machine and has access to e-mail. The amendments enable him or others to submit a series of applications, almost on a daily basis, to enable them to return to Parliament square to demonstrate in a way set out in the proposed legislation, which takes into account the issue of noise.

I welcome the amendments. I think that they assist the process in which we can say that Brian Haw and others are not going away, and will not be deterred from enabling themselves to demonstrate in Parliament square in future on issues of critical importance, such as Iraq and other matters.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I start where the Minister started, which was with DNA and fingerprint identification of those who may have died. It is worth making the point that under other legislation we should make provision for people voluntarily to provide samples for DNA testing or fingerprints for later identification, for those who are not on the national register. It seems that we are restricting the usefulness to those whose fingerprints or DNA may be held on the national register—but that register will not contain everyone in the country. I am not saying that that should be compulsory, but we should make provision so that for whatever purpose may be useful in future, people can say, "I would like my samples and my fingerprints to be available where necessary." It is a point for the future. I welcome the provision made so far. The House will note that the Minister said that this is not only for the tsunami disaster but for other occasions—we cannot anticipate what they would be.

The ability to demonstrate is important. Indeed, it is vital, but I am a traditionalist in that I was brought up with the idea that there could not be placards too close to the Houses of Parliament, and that demonstrations would break off when they came past Parliament. It would be better if we returned to that situation. There is the question of transition. The noisy encampment that we have had outside Parliament has not been a blessing. The fact is that it has happened. The sooner we can ensure that people can protest in a way that does not cause health and safety problems for those who service this place, and the general public, the better. If it is goodbye Mr. Haw, then goodbye.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 124 — Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 79.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Clause 124 and schedule 10 are fundamentally about protecting vulnerable communities and closing an inequality in law that is exploited by those who seek to cause damage to those communities. By introducing incitement to religious hatred, we sought to deliver justice and fairness to members of all faiths, and I am sorely disappointed that the Opposition parties in the other place have chosen not to support the provision.

There is no ulterior motive for introducing the proposed offence. We have been committed to doing so for some time. In fact, it was considered as early as 1986, when it was rejected because there was not felt to be a problem to address at the time. We introduced an almost identical offence in 2001, shortly after 11 September and the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. That was rejected because it was felt that the provision should not be included in an anti-terrorism Bill.

We have, however, remained committed to providing the protection needed since 2001. We listened carefully to the consideration of evidence by the House of Lords Select Committee, when the police informed the Committee that the offence could have helped to prevent the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. We listened carefully when a wide range of faith communities twice asked us to extend the protection now available only to Jews and Sikhs, to ensure equity of protection in law. We tried to respond to that call. Other support has come from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, the Law Society and many other organisations.

To move forward on this issue, we replicated the offence of incitement to racial hatred, which for nearly 20 years has provided protection for Jews and Sikhs, without being misused or placing unnecessary restrictions on free speech. I am baffled by those who oppose the offence on the ground of its so-called loose wording. Clause 124 uses exactly the same wording as the provision that protects Jews and Sikhs already. I am equally baffled by those who would argue that Jews and Sikhs should have greater protection in law than Muslims, Hindus, Christians or Buddhists, despite the evidence from the police and the faith communities.

The only restrictions that we have seen as a result of the incitement to racial hatred offence are those that have helped to change our culture for the better. The offence has helped to set boundaries around what is acceptable behaviour and language in our society.

Clause 124 and schedule 10 are a crucial test of the society that we want to create. By supporting the Government's proposals, the Opposition parties would have sent a clear message about society's disapproval of those who abuse the loophole in the law to promote hatred of others because of their faith. Such behaviour has no place in modern Britain.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

For reasons that I stated at the time, I supported the clause to which my hon. Friend is referring. Does she agree that in practice it would not have meant that one could not criticise a religion or criticise religious practices? Like a number of Members, I have no faith, but I have recalled on a number of occasions the fact that we can affirm, because of Charles Bradlaugh, who was four times refused the right to take his seat because he had no religion. As what has been proposed would in no way ban criticism of religion—which I do not want to engage in, but which I would not challenge the right of others to express—it is difficult to understand why there should be such criticism of trying to protect people who do not have the protection that Jews and Sikhs have now.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently. The clause in no way attacks the right of free speech. In no way does it attack the rights of comedians, academics, politicians or anyone else to criticise individual religions. We are trying to protect individuals against whom hatred is incited because of their religious faith. As I have said, we lifted the wording from that in the current law on incitement to racial hatred. That raises the question of how Members of this place, and those in the other place, can support the law on incitement to racial hatred yet not support clause 124. As with incitement to racial hatred, a high threshold is set. There is also the Attorney-General's involvement. That would have applied in this instance, too.

It is with acute disappointment that we are having to ask the House to agree to remove the provision from the Bill. The unelected House has chosen not to rise to the challenge of what I believe is a fundamental aspect of creating a decent society. The parliamentary timetable means that it will not be possible to insist on the inclusion of the clause without jeopardising the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other important provisions to tackle crime. I do not believe that that is in anyone's interest.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

The Minister is doing what other Ministers do when they are not desperately happy, and chooses to talk about the unelected other place. Will she remind the House of the proportion of the Members of the other place who have been appointed by the Prime Minister?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Discussion about the other place and how it should be constituted is not for this afternoon. I say again that Opposition parties in the House and the other place have contributed to the removal of the clause from the Bill. They will to answer for that. However, I reassure my hon. Friends that it remains the Government's firm and clear intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will make sure that that is part of our manifesto in the forthcoming general election.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

We come to one of the most hotly contested aspects of the Bill, but it is not a central aspect, which is why the Minister has moved that we agree with the amendment to remove the clause and schedule dealing with religious hatred. The debate has gone on in the other place and in Committee, and I shall not rehash the arguments that divide us across the House. I shall make just three or four points.

Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Minister or anyone else that there is agreement in all parts of the House that we need to prevent religious hatred. The issue that divides us is how best to achieve that. My party has consistently supported the anti-discrimination legislation to protect people from being discriminated against in respect of their religion. Our fear is that the Government have not thought through the effect of the measure that they are putting before the House. We made it clear on Second Reading that although we largely supported the Bill, this was one aspect that we could not support.

The measure would curb free speech. It is outside the fine British traditions of religious tolerance and fierce religious debate, which have characterised the history of our country. We believe that the existing law deals with incitement to violence and words designed to cause alarm, distress or harassment. We remain convinced that the Government are wrong in their contention, and right in the amendments withdrawing the provisions. The best way to deal with evil and intolerant ideas is to confront and defeat them in open debate, not as the Government originally envisaged in the Bill. We support the amendments to remove the misguided provisions from the Bill.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am delighted to have the opportunity at this late stage in the proceedings on the Bill to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues in our home affairs team on having secured a victory for freedom of expression. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that if returned to office on 5 May, the Labour party would introduce similar legislation in the next Parliament. That seems an extremely good reason to vote Conservative on 5 May, in addition to all the other reasons.

I did not have a chance to participate in earlier debates on this matter and I shall not rehearse the arguments, but let me say at the outset that it is important that all of us should recognise the sensitivities of others, and that we should not go out of our way to be gratuitously offensive to others. I frequently take offence at things that are said, but I have to bite my lip and move on. The price that one must pay in a free society is that people will occasionally take offence. I am no exception to that.

I have had quite a few letters from constituents. My mailbag on the issue has been atypical. I have had more letters on this subject than on other issues, from constituents who have been extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposal. They will undoubtedly welcome the fact that their lordships were prepared to take a stand and strike the right balance between protecting individual faiths and individual views, and the need to preserve freedom of expression.

The coalition of people against the measure was pretty wide. The Minister referred to some of them. Rowan Atkinson the comedian, who enjoys enormous support throughout the country, was famously in the forefront of the campaign against it. Academics, journalists, authors, human rights campaigners and many on the Labour Benches expressed concern about the implications of the proposal and the threat that it posed to freedom of expression. It is important to bear in mind that those fears were shared by more than just a narrow group of people.

Christian groups were certainly concerned. Talking to people, I have found a general view—this is anecdotal evidence and I would not claim that it is backed up by some weighty study—that one can insult Christians with complete impunity, but if one insults those of the Muslim faith in particular, the whole world comes down around one. Let me give the Minister an example—the case of the Sikh play, to which the Sikhs understandably took great exception. There was a fracas in Birmingham when the play was put on, and the play was taken off.

By contrast, 60,000 people—I was one of them—complained to the BBC about the Jerry Springer programme, and what happened? Absolutely nothing. They were effectively dismissed. I am writing to Michael Grade to say that if the BBC has taken the view that its commitment to taste and decency was not infringed by the Jerry Springer programme, what is the point of the BBC having a taste and decency requirement in its charter? People feel that there is one rule for one group and another rule for others.

I am sorry that the Minister has accepted the verdict of the country and of the other place slightly less than graciously.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss the issues raised by the play in Birmingham or the Jerry Springer programme, but I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The clause deals not with satire or with taking a view against a religion, but with incitement to hatred against someone on the basis of their religious belief. That would include those of the Christian faith. That is the point. Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe we should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It has been the Government's position that those who make genuine criticisms of different faiths have nothing to fear from the measure. Unfortunately, the assurances given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) are assurances that he is in no position to deliver. Ministers are in no position to deliver them, either. Once we have enacted the provision, we are in the hands of the authorities.

The Minister says that there is a defence, in so far as the fiat of the Attorney-General is required. We know that the Attorney-General is a political appointee—I am not making a partisan point—and he is subject to the political climate of the day. There are genuine fears, which I share, that freedom of expression could be challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to point to the fact that there is already legislation that could cover the kind of incitement that none of us would support, and against which we all want action to be taken.

Many people have written to the newspapers and expressed the view that some of the statements from some of the mosques took an awfully long time for the authorities to get to grips with, whereas there was plenty of legislation that could have been invoked to deal with the matter.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I ask him again whether he believes that a future Conservative Government should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred? The same issue applies to that. The wording of this clause is exactly the same as the wording of that legislation. Can he give me one example of the legislation on incitement to racial hatred leading to a clampdown on free speech and discussion about race, or having an adverse effect on comedy or television viewing? My question stands: following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe that the Conservative party should be committed to repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Of course we have no intention of repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. The Minister has missed the point. The opposition to her proposals stems from the belief that the Government are using flawed logic. Religion is significantly different from race. The Barnabas Fund, which has written to me—and, I am sure, many other Members—on this point, notes that religion is a choice that affects attitude and behaviour, while race is not and does not. On that note, I rest my case.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will not, because other Members wish to make a contribution. I am happy to support the Government in supporting the amendments that were successfully moved in another place.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

This one and a half hour debate is not the time to rehearse the various arguments on the issue. Those arguments have been made many times. I simply make a few remarks on this controversial issue, which has got passions running on all sides.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Government have been trying to achieve in these parts of the Bill. Our objections have not been about the end game—what they are trying to achieve—we simply believe that there are better ways to achieve that. We recognise the seriousness of the issue and we recognise that, for many groups, there is a real sensitivity about what are clear attempts to make racial remarks under the cover of religious remarks. There is a gap that needs to be resolved urgently because it is creating tensions in the community. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and we welcome the fact that the Government have sought to do so.

Our disagreement with the Government has been that this important set of principles and piece of legislation has been tagged on to a big Bill that considers the way in which we organise police forces in this country. We felt that that was an inappropriate way in which to tackle the issue. Our proposal has always been for an equalities Bill, which would tackle many of these issues with a well thought through piece of legislation that dealt with discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

I hope that in the next three or four weeks we do not have any nonsense from the Government suggesting in certain parts of the country that the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have been trying to wreck the Bill and do not want to do anything to tackle the problem of religious hatred. That is not the case. We believe that it is a serious issue that needs addressing. However, it should be done properly and robustly via an equalities Bill, which is a way of addressing the issue more effectively. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks.

Legitimate concerns have been put forward by a number of Members from all parts of the House, and not just by the Rowan Atkinsons of this world, but by organisations such as Liberty and PEN, the writer's organisation. They have raised concerns about the difficult balance between legitimate criticism of a religion and freedom of speech. The issue needs to be addressed, but the way to deal with it, and all the other issues, is not to tag it on to the back of a police Bill but to have a proper, well thought out equalities Bill. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks. The communities that want protection in this area should support an equalities Bill. It would give them the protections that they seek.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I will also upset the Minister by supporting the Government's invitation to us to support the amendment that takes out the clause. She has made some serious points. The Leader of the House and others on the Labour Front Bench ought not to give the impression that they intend to exploit the issue for party political reasons during the next four weeks. Given the list of serious organisations that have doubts about the Bill, whoever is in Government after 5 May should hold an open forum with those groups, and with religious groups, to reach agreement on what is useful and acceptable. I would support what the Minister might have said, which is that the clause does not refer to "Muslims" but treats all religions in the same way. I praise her for that, because it is sensible.

I end my remarks by saying that I welcome the opposition of the community in Worthing to the recent arson attack on the local Islamic centre. I will not say any more because people may be charged. I support the Islamic centre's open evenings that bring people together about once a month. To those Christians who go there to say that they do not agree with us, I say that it is one of the things about having different religions and even different denominations. It is only a few hundred years since we burnt people at the stake for different interpretations of the same book.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 142 — Interference with Contractual Relationships so as to harm animal research organisation

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 40, 45, 47 and 80 to 86.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The amendments cover three matters. The first is protection of the activities of animal research organisations. Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 relate to the economic damage clauses that we inserted in the Bill on Report in this House.

Amendment No. 36 responds to comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment narrows the scope of clause 142 by stating specifically that peaceful advocacy of economic actions against companies that are connected to animal research organisations will not trigger an offence. The amendment ensures that an offence can be triggered only by methods of persuasion that are themselves unlawful. That has always been our intention.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 extend the list of persons connected to animal research organisations contained in clause 143 to include funders of research. Funding bodies have been targeted for unlawful actions by animal rights extremists, just as have employees, suppliers and customers of animal research organisations. It is right that funders should have the same protection as other persons connected to animal research organisations.

I now come to the amendments concerned with road traffic offences. The new clauses inserted by amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are imports from the Road Safety Bill, which will sadly not now be enacted in this Session. The new clauses deal with two matters. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 39 enables the police to have access to insurance industry data relating to vehicles whose use is no longer insured. The second new clause permits police to carry out an evidential breath test not only at a police station but at a hospital or at or near a place such as the roadside where a preliminary breath test has been administered. I think that we can all agree that both measures will contribute to road safety. They were welcomed by all parts of the other place.

Finally, amendments Nos. 80 to 86 would allow Scottish Ministers to exercise certain delegated powers in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, following its extension to Scotland. In particular, Scottish Ministers will, after consultation with the Home Secretary, have the power to commence the provisions as they apply to Scotland. Additionally, Scottish Ministers will have the power to designate by order which specific sectors of the private security industry in Scotland are to be licensed and when.

As this is the last group of amendments, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen for their constructive working relationships with us on the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It has covered a huge area—serious organised crimes, community support officers, custody officers, money laundering and, importantly, tackling animal rights extremists, an area for which I have had personal responsibility in the Home Office.

As I said, I am disappointed that the measures on incitement to religious hatred are not going forward. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who represents the Liberal Democrats, that it is a cop-out to say that we need another piece of legislation to deal with something that, as I said before, uses exactly the same wording and has the same intent as did the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. That said, I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

We have reached the final group of amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for outlining what the amendments seek to do.

We agree that two key clauses have fallen away from the Road Safety Bill, which will not be enacted in this Parliament. The measures to allow the police to secure relevant information from insurance companies and, in particular, to conduct roadside breath tests are important, and they command support on both sides of the House. We are grateful for the assurances in the other place that the police will be properly trained and supported in administering the evidential burdens test.

The provisions on animal rights campaigners were tweaked in Committee, where the Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who has led for the Conservative party on that issue. Again, we are grateful that the sensible change outlined by the Minister has been made.

Finally, the Minister referred to the extension of the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 into Scottish legislation, which is an unexceptional measure. I thought that she and I had had our last outing together on the 2001 Act in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when we debated bouncers and doorkeepers, but we have returned to it right at the end of this Bill.

I agree with the Minister that the provisions setting up SOCA are important. As I said earlier, although the Bill was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, it has been improved significantly, and its central thrust certainly commands my party's support. SOCA will undoubtedly help to tackle the soaring levels of crime in Britain. However, we need far more than SOCA: we need 40,000 extra policemen and women to police our streets; we need less micro-management from the centre; and we need more local accountability. The Bill does not address those issues, but they will no doubt inform the debate over the next four weeks. I believe that those issues are a compelling argument to vote Conservative on 5 May.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, and I am pleased that Viscount Simon took the opportunity to add two welcome measures to the Bill giving powers to the police.

Amendment No. 39 concerns the disclosure of information about the insurance status of vehicles and, by implication, whether a driver is insured to use a particular vehicle. It is a technical change to remove an inhibition, and it is welcome.

There is a problem with insurance companies that we must face and, again, an open discussion is required. The loadings on insurance premiums for young drivers are now so great that I suspect that a number of parents do not add their children to their insurance policies. Both the additional risk, as calculated by the underwriters, and the fact that it is a good idea for young drivers to be nominated to policies are important, but some insurance companies make it so difficult that some young people and some people who have had trouble with the law—I admit to having experienced such trouble—find themselves making the wrong choice of not being covered. People should be covered, but the level of cover is a matter for debate, and we should return to that issue.

Amendment No. 40 concerns the power to require specimens of breath at the roadside or in hospital. It is not vital to know whether this point is covered by this clause or some other provision, or whether the Government are minded to introduce a relevant provision. When I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, if a blood sample was taken in hospital from someone who had been injured in a crash for blood matching, and if there were grounds for suspecting that that person had been driving while above the legal limit for alcohol, it was not possible to analyse the blood without the patient's consent—I am not sure whether it was possible to analyse it with the patient's consent—to see whether there was prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed. I hope that the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health will examine that issue. Failing to give consent in those circumstances should become an automatic offence, like failing to give a blood sample. Clearly, unconscious patients cannot be asked to give their consent.

Amendment No. 40 provides for less bureaucracy and less movement of people from the roadside to the police station. It contains sufficient protections to prevent the police from using the power to harass people. I am not saying that the police would often do that, but I know of one case in my constituency in which that happened. Amendment No. 40 will not make the situation worse, and it may make things better. It is good for drivers and good for suspects.

During my three-and-a-half years at the Department for Transport, no motorist ever complained about giving an alcohol or breath test. Some of those motorists were not drinking drivers, in which case the legislation was in their favour. Some were drinking drivers who were below the limit, in which case they had a lucky escape—it was not lucky for us that they were drink-driving. Others were above the limit, in which case there were caught bang to rights.

Amendment No. 40 is not controversial. The measure is welcome, and I am glad that the Government have accepted it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 101 agreed to.