Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am not going to give way. I have so little time and I want to leave time for the Minister and others at the end. It is still true, as was said in 1676 by Lord Chief Justice Hale, that Christianity is"““parcel of the laws of England””." It may not be as much parcel as it was then, but it is true that Christianity is integral to the constitution. Every day, we have Prayers before Mr. Speaker takes his place in this Chamber. We should pull at the threads of the constitution with care and an hour's debate is wholly inadequate to decide a matter of this gravity. If it comes to a vote, I shall personally vote for an abolition of the blasphemy laws, but the matter needs far more careful consideration. In particular, the Church of England is entitled to be consulted properly about the proposal. I turn now to the amendment to clause 107, which creates the new offence and outlaws incitement to hatred on grounds of people's sexuality. I do not take the libertarian view of the role of such legislation. The criminal law has a proper role to play in protecting people from harm. Just as we accepted that laws protecting a minority from hatred on grounds of their race were right 30 years ago, so there is a case for similar, if not directly comparable, protection for gay people, who do not choose their sexuality any more than people choose their ethnic origin. Enormous strides have been made in this country towards tolerance for homosexual people, but it remains the case that gay people can live in fear and can be subject to violent attacks, and that hateful websites and lyrics promote hate against them. I pay tribute to the work of Stonewall in drawing attention to that. We would all agree that such incitement to violence is wrong, and I believe that there is a role for the criminal law in outlawing it. My colleagues on the Front Bench supported in general terms—