31 Jan 2006

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): I have my name on a bewilderingly large number of amendments that would have the effect of putting the Lords amendments back into force. I say straight away that I put my name to those amendments somewhat unwillingly. It is an awesome and awful thing to put one's name to an amendment that is critical of one's own Government. That is the first matter that I take on board.

The second is that at the outset, when the Bill began its passage through this House on Second Reading, I was one of those who believed that it was ill-conceived and should fall. I have changed my mind on that, which is why I have signed the amendments as they stand.

It is relevant to consider why I took that view. I am one of those who believes that there is a profound division between race and religion and that the sentry posts that man that division are the moral imperatives of "ought" and "should". Nobody can say to me that I ought to be black, white, Chinese or Russian, but there is no shortage of people outside this House, and some inside it, who would have no hesitation in saying that I ought to be Christian, Islamic, or Jewish, particularly if I chose to marry into that faith.

For 300 years, we have from time to time issued edicts to protect minorities on the ground of race—the Race Relations Act 1976 was not the first example of that. I tried to discover one that is a particular favourite of mine in the statute book, but I was unable to do so. I know that it exists, so Members will have to take it from me. It is the enactment in the vagabond legislation that a man should not be taken to be a vagabond simply because he is Scottish.

However, we have always set our face against the protection of faith by statute. The reason for that is very simple. Because of 200 years of religious intolerance, which led to nothing but bigotry and death, we have always understood that one cannot protect the faith without protecting the fundamentalist and the bigot who lie within it. Indeed, the legislation that we pass has precisely the reverse effect because the people whom we protect most are those who come close to committing the offences that we are attempting to place on the statute book. We end up with a gloomy vortex whereby I loathe bigotry and those who preach against any faith, and then those people say that my loathing them makes me liable under the very legislation that we have passed. We will create not a tolerant society but a legislative and cultural bear pit.

The thing is made infinitely worse by importing the concept of recklessness. Recklessness is the bastard part of intention. It has caused more trouble in the English criminal law than any other single concept. It is so wide as to be practically devoid of definition. If I may bore the House for a moment, there are two classic cases. The first is the so-called firebreak case, whereby a man who perceives that there may be a small danger sets up a firebreak that destroys the forest, city, town or whatever he perceived to be in danger. His motives were good, but he was undoubtedly reckless. The second concerns the bus driver who loses his way in a double-decker bus, approaches a low bridge, and says, "I don't know whether I can get this bus under there; I might not be able to but let's have a go anyway." He does not intend to kill all the passengers on the top deck, but he is undoubtedly reckless.

I say that in order to demonstrate just how wide this test is. We have heard excellent examples today concerning the cartoons about the Prophet. Those would undoubtedly be caught by the Bill—it would not be a question of how one construes the law or of worrying about the courts, judges or juries bringing in perverse verdicts.
If we pass this Bill in its present form, we will regret it for many years to come. I urge the Government now, before it is too late, to remove the concept of recklessness. Ultimately, we will all agree that an avowed or explicit intention to cause or stir up religious hatred is something that may justifiably be impugned. Anything else will be an incursion on our freedom of speech of historic proportions that will be regretted for generations to come.