Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. In Committee, we spent much time considering intent. If he examines some of the other amendments that I have tabled, especially amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, he will realise that leaving out the word ““religious”” would confine the offence of inciting religious hatred to one of specific intent and remove it from the second category, which is sometimes described as the ““likely limb””. I am afraid that that is not immediately clear, but that alternative approach might commend itself to hon. Members. I must however be realistic. I have to accept, in the light of what happened in Committee, that the Government vigorously reject the approach. They were committed to maintaining the duality of incitement to racial and religious hatred, including the possibility that the offence could be committed not only with but without specific intent, if the threatening, insulting or abusive words were likely to be heard by people in whom they were likely to stir up religious hatred. I stress to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that that is one of the reasons for my fundamental objection to the Bill. Given that we are on Report and I am trying to tempt the Government, however, I am at least willing to try to encourage them to consider new clause 2 and provide some greater protection. If they did that, I would not jump up and down and say that the Bill was acceptable but it must get through not only this place but another place. The prospect of its getting though another place in its current form is limited. Given that I have always attempted to proceed by argument, not simply by confrontation, I tabled new clause 2 because it provides at least a measure of definition. Unless we provide that the words can be construed as constituting justification for violence, the Bill gives complete protection, whether there was specific intent or not.