Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

The hour is late, so I will be brief. As a new Member, I think that I am beginning to learn some of the tricks of this House. If the Government have a bad law they put up a nice Minister and hope that they can get it through. At the beginning of the debates in Committee, the Minister gave those of us who wanted changes to the Bill some hope when he said:"““we are prepared to engage and we are prepared to listen. Obviously, we would be foolish if we did not consider any sensible proposals that could improve the Bill.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 June 2005; c. 4.]" Having listened to the debates today and on Second Reading and read through the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, it is clear that this is a bad Bill and that even the Minister proposing it is not too sure what it is meant to do. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who went through almost every example—I counted them off as he did so—that was given as to why the Bill was needed, showing that such incidents can be dealt with by existing legislation. We are therefore left wondering what exactly the Bill is about. Even some supporters of the Bill, such as the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), are beginning to have doubts about it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda made the case when he said that he wanted certain changes made for theatres because the Government have ““lowered the level””. If the Government have lowered the bar that makes it difficult for theatres to put on plays, has it not been raised for those who wish to proclaim their religion or to preach in church?