Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I respectfully agree with that. I am trying to honour the Committee’s decision and not ignore it, which I am normally told is good practice. If one does not take your Lordships seriously, one usually pays for it in a most unpleasant way. I shall deal with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, because he is probably right to say that he has not been shown the courtesy that we would normally show in dealing with such matters. I am very happy to deal with it because it is slightly more discrete. I understand the noble Viscount’s concern about the courts. I understand his concern about the way in which the Human Rights Act will bite. I shall try to add a little clarity. As the Committee will know, on the face of every Bill there is a statement made in accordance with Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act that the contents of the Bill are compatible, or are proposed to be compatible, with the Human Rights Act. Therefore, when the courts of England and Wales construe any such Act with such a compatibility statement, it is incumbent on all those authorities to construe any Act which is so passed by Government in a way that is consistent with, and not contradictory of, the Human Rights Act 1998. For that reason it has often been argued that it is not necessary expressly to import each and every article contained in the European Convention on Human Rights because it is there in the Human Rights Act. A reason why people have been reluctant to see individual articles referred to in any given Bill is that one may make an assumption that those articles are either pre-eminent or predominant or in some way to be given a greater significance than any other article, which would not be correct. The legal obligation that will be placed on authorities to apply the new offence in a manner that is compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9, which has been held to include the right to proselytise and the freedom of expression under Article 10, remains. We have had a debate about whether, notwithstanding the fact that that is the case, we should have a declaratory statement on the face of Bills. I have said that we shall consider that. If this Bill were to enter into law in the same way as every other Bill, a series of things would be likely to happen, first, in relation to the implementation, once the date is acknowledged. There would probably be training provided by the Judicial Studies Board. It is usual for the Bench Book, which many Members will know about, to contain specimen directions to assist a judge in how he or she must express those directions so that they are compatible and clear. All the usual procedures that bite in relation to every Bill are likely to apply to this Bill too. I understand why the noble Lord says that it may cause difficulty, but it has not caused difficulty in the past and we shall be able to address those issues in a practical way.