Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I want to speak specifically to amendment No. 1. I should point out at the beginning that I am aware that the Government do not think that there is any need for this provision, but I shall develop the case that I think is necessary. It is my pleasure to speak to this cross-party ecumenical amendment, which basically aims to protect free speech, and I am delighted that many hon. Members have added their names to it. It is not a party political issue, as the list of names illustrates. May I say at the outset that I would like to have a vote on this amendment when the time comes, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker? The amendment is ecumenical because it was drafted with the help of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The two Churches took the unusual step of making a joint submission to the Public Bill Committee. What excited their concern was a Government amendment, which became clause 107, to make it a criminal offence to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. I am aware that some hon. Members disagree strongly with some of the teachings of England's two largest denominations, but I hope that no one would accuse either of them of wanting to protect the right to incite hatred against anyone. So why is anybody worried about the clause? Let me read from the Churches' submission, which draws a comparison with identical provisions in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which criminalised incitement to religious hatred:"““In religious hatred debates, both supporters and opponents of the Bill maintain a distinction between protection of people from personal attack, which was agreed to be desirable, and protection of their beliefs and practices from criticism or satire, which was generally thought to be undesirable.””" A similar distinction should be maintained in the field of sexuality. Sexual activity and lifestyle, as distinct from sexual orientation, are matters of choice and impinge on the public sphere. As such, they are subject to evaluation and criticism and the freedom to discuss them should be preserved. The Churches' submission goes on to refer to accepted Christian teaching about human sexuality, marriage and family, and asserts that it would be impossible for Christianity to be practised and taught without those convictions being widely and freely discussed within the Churches and wider society. They are also concerned that clause 107 may impinge on their basic freedom to practise their religion. We cannot ignore such a serious concern from two important national religious institutions.