Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

May I move on as other hon. Members want to speak in the debate? I turn to the matters that have been raised by the Minister. He sought to provide reassurance that new paragraph 29K will provide a crucial protection to debate in respect of freedom of expression. I disagree. First, the Lords amended the Bill to protect freedom of speech. I think that their version is better than what the Government propose, as it makes specific reference to ““adherents””. Interestingly, the Government chose not to include that in their amendments but, that apart, there is not a great deal between the two versions. However, paragraph 29K(2) of the Government’s proposed new schedule—the ““avoidance of doubt”” provision—is a different matter. I am aware of its origin, and I am sure that Lord Lester had good intentions, but the more I read it the more I am convinced that it is not the worth the paper it is written on. It is an entirely circular argument, whose consequence may be that almost every prosecution will spiral down into oblivion. However, it will not prevent the police from knocking on people’s doors and saying, ““You’d better be careful. We heard what you had to say in your preaching hall last week and we didn’t like it.”” It is obvious that people who indulge in"““criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing . . . any religion, religious belief or religious practice””" will lay themselves open to the charge that they intend to stir up religious hatred against individuals. The Government place great emphasis on that distinction, but I do not think that it is one that, logically, can be made.