Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

With the alacrity and perspicacity for which my hon. Friend is renowned, he has anticipated my next point. The only people who will be free from the culture of fear, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) painted a picture in his excellent appraisal from the Front Bench, are hon. Members, who are protected by parliamentary privilege. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, this House will be the only place in the kingdom where we can speak our minds. The distinction between the proper exposition of hatred of evil and the Minister’s case on recklessness and intent is so narrow that it is impossible to draft amendments adequately to deal with it, but at least the Lords have attempted to modify the excesses of the Bill. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that many people do not believe that we need a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, and he was right. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have touched on the reason why many of us believe that such a Bill is unnecessary: there is already law to protect people from the sort of thing that he fears. As has been said repeatedly, statute already exists to protect people and, since 2001, it has had a religious element, too. If we believe that it is right to hate wrong, and if we believe that it is right to express that hatred, we may well fall foul of the new legislation. Most people who have strong beliefs want to express them and those who have strong political or religious beliefs have a mission to express them and, indeed, to convert. Some people will undoubtedly perceive that as insulting or offensive, while others will undoubtedly perceive it as a threat. Such people will go to the police, who will find themselves in the impossible situation of having to make theological or political judgments on matters about which they may know very little. The freedom to express strong belief is not unlimited—those hon. Members who know me well know that I would never make the case for unlimited freedom—but freedom is best constrained by manners, courtesy, custom and convention. Occasionally, freedom must be constrained by law, but it should always be done with the utmost caution. The Minister, who is an honourable and decent man, should exercise great caution tonight in making his argument and directing Government Members. The Lords amendments form a perfectly reasonable compromise and I and other hon. Members cannot understand why the Government do not simply accept them. The Government’s manifesto pledge to create a religious hatred offence would be fulfilled and they could return to those with whom they no doubt brokered a deal and tell them that they have delivered on their promise. Furthermore, Rowan Atkinson, Justice, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society, the Muslim Association of Britain and many other groups that have lobbied against the Bill would go away if not exactly happy, then at least relieved that the scope of the offence had been circumscribed. It is notable that many religious and secular believers do not seek the legal protection that the Government seem so enthusiastic to give them. That is because the new offence is like an unguided missile—no one can be entirely sure who it will hit. That is why an unlikely alliance of writers, comedians, lawyers, secular groups and religious interests are combined in their opposition to the Government’s proposal. Interestingly, none of those groups has been deterred by what the Government claim is a compromise and none has been put off their course by the Government amendments. Like many hon. Members, that broad coalition is not satisfied by the Government’s proposals and is less satisfied by the Minister’s lukewarm assurances that our safety lies in guidance or legal interpretation. When a Minister relies on that argument at the Dispatch Box, we know that he is on weak ground, however good a man and however well intentioned he may be. If I may be allowed a brief aside in a serious speech, any man with a direct relationship with ““Postman Pat”” must be a decent fellow. The Government have floundered on two particular matters, which I shall briefly reprise before sitting down so that other hon. Members can contribute. First, the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out that it is impossible to understand how the Government can reconcile recklessness, which is extreme carelessness, with intent or intention, which implies a deliberate decision to act.