• Religious liberty
• Publications
  • Advocate magazines
  • Annual reviews
  • Child abuse
  • Drugs
  • Education
  • Gambling & the national lottery
  • Homosexual rights
  • Marriage & the family
  • Medical ethics
  • Religious liberty
  • Scotland
  • Theology
  • Update magazines
• MPs' votes
• Audio archive
• Theology
• Links
  • Christian
  • Pro-life
  • Legislation
  • Media
  • Political

The details

On 26^th November 2001 MPs voted for including the new offence of ‘incitement to religious hatred’ in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill by 330 votes to 211.

On 10^th December the House of Lords voted against the offence and the Bill returned to the Commons without it.

On 12^th December MPs voted to reinstate the new offence in the Bill by 309 votes to 238.

The next day, on 13^th December, Peers again voted to remove the clause from the Bill. In order to pass the Bill as soon as possible, the Government accepted the Lords’ decision. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was therefore enacted without an incitement to religious hatred offence.

The Labour Party whipped its MPs to support the offence. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats whipped their MPs to oppose the offence.

In November 2004 the Government published its Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which included the incitement to religious hatred offence.¹ On 7^th February 2005 the House of Commons considered the plans. However, the only vote held on the issue was on an alternative amendment to extend the race laws (put forward by the Liberal Democrats and supported by the Conservatives). No vote was taken on the incitement to religious hatred clause itself.

Some MPs who strongly opposed the offence voted against the Lib Dem amendment because they did not agree with it. Likewise, MPs who strongly supported the offence also voted against the Lib Dem amendment. For this reason the 2005 vote on the Lib Dem amendment cannot be taken with certainty to represent an MP’s view on the incitement to religious hatred offence itself.

How we recorded the vote

• Voted for an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

• Voted against an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

• Abstained or was absent on the votes for an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

Voting examples

An MP’s most recent vote has been taken to be their current position. So for an MP who cast a different vote on 12^th December to their vote on 26 th November, we have used the most recent vote, that on 12^th December.

For example, Tam Dalyell voted for an incitement to religious hatred offence on 26^th November, but against the offence on 12^th December. Our statement of his position gives his vote on 12^th December. Thus Tam Dalyell has the designation. Voted against an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

For MPs who abstained or were absent on 12^th December, their vote on 26^th November is taken to be their current position.

For example, Nigel Beard was abstained or was absent on 12^th December, but voted for the offence on 26^th November. Our statement of his position gives his vote on 26^th November. Thus Nigel Beard has the designation. Voted for an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

• ¹In March 2005 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published its report on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. It concluded, referring to the incitement to religious hatred offence, “the present Bill provides another example of legislative proposals that command broad political consensus, and are of some urgency, being used as the vehicle for legislating on more contentious matters that should be the subject of separate legislation.” (The Select Committee on the Constitution, Third Report : The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, March 2005, para. 26)