Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I wonder if I can be of positive help here. If the Government were root and branch opposed to the amendments that have been moved today, I agree that nothing could be done. They would be wedded to their old Bill. It would be returned to the Commons and it would come back here with threats of invoking the Parliament Act. It would be a general against-the-public-interest disaster. However, within the framework that we have built this evening—and we have done so only because we have had no consultation even though we were promised it; I do not feel at all guilty about having to press the amendment—there is no reason why we should not take the free speech guarantee as a series of examples and then at the end add the words, ““in breach of the convention rights””. In that way we would combine the necessary examples given by the Home Office, but they would be rooted in the convention. There is no reason why that could not be done. It would be perfectly simple and would build on what has already been done. The ““intent”” provision could remain just as it is. On the issue of ““threatening”” and ““insulting””, I agree that it could not be done by itself on Report because it would go against the wishes of the House. If the Government insisted on it, it would be sent back to the Commons—which is, after all, the other place in which one legislates—and it would then come back again. In that way, both Houses would have acted constructively to build a ship in which we would all want to sail. It seems to me that we have made real progress. The Government and the noble Baroness are not sulking because they have not had their way. She knows very well that the big majority vote here will help her to get the Government to do that most difficult thing, one that governments find really hard to do—to move quickly and think hard about what should be done. That is how I see the position and I hope that I have been constructive.