On Friday, my Department announced that we had identified a case of highly pathogenic avian influenza in birds held in quarantine. After further analysis by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, we announced on Sunday that the virus was H5N1. We now consider that the virus was found in samples taken from two birds—one Pionus parrot and one Mesia. The closest match is a strain identified in ducks in China earlier this year.

There has been no reported occurrence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the United Kingdom since 1992. The premises in which this event occurred contained two consignments of exotic birds from Surinam and Taiwan. At this stage, we cannot say for sure where the virus originated, but our working hypothesis, taking account of the identification of the strain, is that the virus is most likely to have come via Taiwan. However, it is important to keep an open mind about other possible sources and we are doing exactly that.

As the House knows, the birds in the quarantine premises were culled by officers from the local animal health office on Friday evening. All those at the premises who may have come into contact with diseased birds were given antiviral treatment to protect them against risk of infection.

Since Friday, we have been investigating the sequence of events that led to the death of the birds. As we announced on Sunday, some birds had already died in quarantine before 16 October. Thirty-two of those birds were being held in a freezer. Initial tests, which have not yet been validated, identified that H5 is present in some of those birds. We have not yet established the full circumstances of those deaths. However, our standard instructions on deaths in quarantine state:

"When birds die during quarantine, their carcases must be placed by quarantine staff in a fridge or freezer until the Local Veterinary Inspector can collect them for transmission to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency."

That is, of course, where the tests are carried out.

Our investigations will continue and we will of course bring our findings to the attention of the House as early as possible. Meanwhile, we are taking certain prudent steps to ensure that our protection against avian influenza is as secure as possible. First, I want to underline the fact that this incident has demonstrated both the threat posed by avian influenza and the controls that we have in place to meet that threat. The quarantine system provided the protection that it is intended to deliver. That is not a reason for complacency, but it is right that we should recognise the swift and effective action that was taken once the disease had been identified. It also means that our disease-free status on avian flu remains unaffected.

The incident took place against a background of increasing reported outbreaks of avian influenza in wild birds. Since July, we have seen outbreaks first in an area of Russia and then in Romania and Turkey. There have been other confirmed and suspected cases in some of those countries and in Croatia. We are taking those developments very seriously, but I should perhaps stress that they are not in themselves a cause for undue alarm. Avian flu does not at present transmit easily to humans. But there is concern about the potential for avian influenza viruses to mutate into new forms that might directly affect humans.

Such transmission has not yet happened and indeed may never happen, but there is good reason to be very vigilant against the establishment of avian flu. I stress that avian flu is a disease of birds and that we receive a number of reports of suspected cases in any normal year, and for the obvious reason that people are being particularly cautious we have received more than normal this year.

Moreover, we in the UK and more generally in the European Union have worked to establish a good level of preparedness. Our contingency plan for avian flu was laid before Parliament in July. We regularly exercise the contingency arrangements nationally and locally, and our recent experience of managing a Newcastle disease outbreak demonstrated the fundamental soundness of those arrangements for dealing with a disease outbreak in birds, but we will continue to build on that good level of preparedness.

In response to the specific incident that has occurred in quarantine, we issued instructions to the state veterinary service at the weekend that releases of birds from quarantine should now be subject to a case-by-case risk assessment. We understand that there are about 15 consignments of birds currently in quarantine. Each of those will be subjected to an individual veterinary risk assessment and referred to DEFRA headquarters before any decision to release is authorised.

At the weekend, the chief veterinary officer and I ordered that a general review of our quarantine arrangements and procedures be undertaken. Pending the outcome of that review, we have called on the European Commission to propose an immediate temporary ban on imports of live birds into the EU while we collectively assess the risk that they pose. I am pleased to say that the Commission responded very positively to that call, and a ban lasting until 30 November was agreed in the relevant EU Standing Committee yesterday.

At the same time, we are especially mindful of the potential threat posed by illegal imports. My Department already works closely with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the control of illegal imports of animals and animal products, and I have asked my officials immediately to address how we can increase our vigilance against the specific issue of illegal imports of live birds. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who has responsibility for rural affairs, landscape and biodiversity, will also take up the issue of illegal trade at an EU wildlife trade enforcement event tomorrow.

We were already working actively with the Commission and other member states to tackle the wider threat of the introduction of avian influenza by migrating wildfowl and other routes. As a result of that work, I expect to bring before the House within the coming days sensible and measured regulations that will assist us in reducing the risk of disease and strengthening our ability to control an outbreak. Those regulations will implement the announcement that we made last week about establishing a register of all commercial poultry producers in the country. As we said then, we shall start that process of registration next month.

For non-commercial poultry keepers, we have produced a simple, clear and, I hope, effective guide to biosecurity, and we are actively distributing that guide through lobby groups, veterinary networks, hobby magazines and other available channels. We have also decided, with fellow member states, that in the present circumstances it is desirable to prohibit bird fairs, markets and shows, except where a risk assessment shows that they can be safely conducted. We are in full discussion of that proposal with potentially affected stakeholders.

Ornithological groups are also very important stakeholders for us, and earlier this month we reached an agreement with them jointly to monitor wild birds. That is, of course, in addition to our existing annual programme of monitoring domestic poultry for avian influenza that is already under way.

The regulations that we will bring before Parliament will give legal effect to the provisions in recent legislation that enable us to instruct poultry keepers to keep their birds indoors, and we are urgently discussing that provision with stakeholders.

In conclusion, I recognise that the public are rightly concerned about avian flu. I am pleased that our quarantine rules worked to identify and eradicate the immediate risk in this incident, but because we are not complacent we are taking the steps that I have indicated both to review and strengthen our protection against legal and illegal imports of captive wild birds, and in the next few days we will introduce the new regulations that I have described.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making available an early copy of her statement and for the technical briefing that her officials provided us with yesterday. I welcome unreservedly the ban on commercial live bird imports that she has announced today, but I have some questions about the past and some questions about the future. I shall start with the past.

First, why did the Secretary of State and her Ministers for six months strenuously resist EU proposals to impose a ban on commercial wild bird imports? Secondly, in her statement she admitted that despite press briefings over the weekend she does not currently know whether the infected bird was a parrot, whether it came from Surinam or whether it was infected by a bird from Taiwan. This is horribly reminiscent of the confusion over sheep and cattle material for which she apologised to the House in 2001. Can she explain how she and her Ministers have for many months presided over quarantine procedures so lax that birds from different continents are kept together, test samples are pooled and there is no clarity in her Department about the true implication of the tests?

Thirdly, when we surveyed poultry concerns we discovered that fewer than half could recall proactive steps by the Department or any other intermediary body to inform them fully about avian flu. Why, after months of reports about the problem, have the Secretary of State and her Ministers failed to take such proactive steps to inform the poultry sector?

I turn to the future. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure the proper separation of birds still in quarantine, to which she referred, and to provide proper polymerase chain reaction testing for poultry flocks? Can she guarantee that the compensation paid to farmers for slaughtered flocks will be sufficiently generous to give incentives for full reporting? How will controls at ports of entry be increased to prevent the smuggling of wild birds once the ban is in place? How will commercial imports be distinguished from pet imports, which are merely being restricted? Who within her Department will be accountable for ensuring that any outbreak in the poultry flock is fully and immediately contained?

In the light of past serious failures and the confusion and inactivity surrounding recent events, the House has a right to an assurance from the Secretary of State that from now on it will no longer be business as usual. We do not want to see her Department once again rendered impotent in the face of disaster and the Army brought in to clear up the mess.

Well, no need to urge the public not to be hysterical.

It is not the case that for six months we strenuously resisted such a ban. I always believe in being charitable to the Opposition, so I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may have a mistaken impression from things that he heard on the radio. The facts are that as long ago as last March a request was made to the European Commission via the Belgian Minister—not, by the way, on the grounds of anything to do with animal disease or avian flu but on the grounds of the welfare of wild birds—from those who have long and legitimately campaigned on those matters. Ministers were not unsympathetic. We sought advice, but the advice was that such a move was not justified. That was also the view of the Commission. The matter was discussed in Council. The Commission argued strongly that on welfare grounds it was a disproportionate response. I repeat that it was not a disease issue at that stage. It is not the case, as has been reported, that only the UK did not share that view. That is wholly untrue. Indeed a moment's thought would make people realise that it was untrue because if only the UK had taken that stance, it would have gone through. The Commission took the view that it was not required, and several member states, of which we were one, supported the Commission. There is thus no truth in the suggestion that we strenuously resisted such a move.

So you did strenuously resist?

We did not resist at all. We said that we felt it was not justified at that time; it was not an animal disease requirement, or concern.

In September I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to review our contingency plan and our contingency arrangements. Following that, a decision was made to draft a letter to the Commission asking for such a ban. In fact, before the dead parrot ever hove into view over the horizon the Government had already decided to approach the Commission to ask it to reconsider the position with regard to a ban. As for the question of separation, the pooling of test samples is a standard procedure, as I said in my statement, and has been for many years. Obviously the whole question of whether birds are separated in different places and in quarantine, and of whether test samples are pooled, which are not at present addressed in the rules, will be considered in the review that we will undertake. It is, however, absolutely clear what the procedures were. We must consider two separate issues: whether the present events occurred because procedures were not followed, or whether they happened because of something to do with the procedures, which we should be refining in any event. That is the exact issue that we are considering.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about his famous survey. I understand that there are 70,000 or so keepers of poultry, who are, of course, probably the ones with relatively large numbers of birds about whom we know. He seems to be under the impression that those people should have been contacted by my Department. I thought that he was in favour of reducing the number of bureaucrats. I am not quite sure how many staff he wants the Department to have if it is to contact 70,000 poultry keepers personally. May I remind the House that it has been the case for a considerable time that poultry keepers are under an obligation to monitor their birds and report signs of illness? They must, as a condition of keeping those birds, know what to do about serious and notifiable avian diseases. These are notifiable diseases.

That is not the point.

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not the point, but with respect it is precisely the point. Poultry owners and keepers are under such an obligation, and that obligation includes operating adequate biosecurity.

As for the question of keepers of small numbers of birds—perhaps almost pet birds—the House will know that advice was issued for them a few days ago. We are doing everything that we can through advertisements and the industry associations to ensure that it is understood.

I am conscious that you do not like people at the Dispatch Box to go on for too long, Mr. Speaker, but I am also conscious that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked me at least eight questions, of which I have so far answered only three. May I just quickly—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman could get a letter from the Secretary of State.

I welcome the fact that the Government are making a statement today and urge the Secretary of State to keep the House informed about future developments. Does she agree that it is important to strike a balance between adopting sensible precautions and not unnecessarily alarming the public or damaging the farming industry? Does she thus share my disquiet about the Edwina Currie-type advice from the European Food Safety Authority on the consumption of eggs and poultry? Will she confirm that there is no greater threat from eating poultry today than there was last week, last month, or last year?

There are serious questions about the quarantine arrangements in place at both the specific establishment in Essex and more widely. The Secretary of State said in her statement that the quarantine system worked, which was true in the sense that the disease was identified while the bird was still held, but cross-contamination happened. Will she clearly state whether she believes that the regulations in place were broken, or whether they were simply inadequate? The way in which birds were kept must be addressed. Do the regulations currently allow birds of different species to be mixed, which would seem to be a totally inadequate way of dealing with biosecurity?

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in many papers that birds at the centre in question are

"kept in excrement-covered cages"?

Is there any truth in that suggestion? Does she share my disquiet that if the papers are accurate—the matter was widely reported in several national papers—such an important biosecurity centre is apparently being run by an individual who has been jailed for offences relating to the importation of wild birds? Should there not be greater controls on who is permitted to run quarantined establishments? Will she make the examination of quarantine arrangements part of her remit?

I welcome the decision to introduce an immediate ban on the wild bird trade and thus urge her, as I did her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), last Thursday, to pay particular attention to the illegal trade, which will increase as a consequence. Will she especially examine trade on the internet, which causes a major problem in the wild bird trade? Will she explain why I was told that a ban on bird fairs was not necessary when I suggested it to her colleague on Thursday, although she announced today that such a ban will be introduced?

Finally, can the Secretary of State comment on suggestions in the newspapers that her Department is preparing, as a necessary precaution, for a mass cull of poultry? What will its parameters be, and could the influenza H5 vaccine be used instead?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to some of his questions. For example, as I said a few moments ago, whether the regulations were observed and whether the rules are adequate are separate issues, and we are pursuing both of them. At present, different species can be mixed, and he is right to assume that that is exactly the kind of issue that the review of general rules will consider. As for where the birds were kept and who was keeping them, there is nothing that I can say about any individual except that the press reports include observations about individuals who are said to have committed offences, but those offences are not reported to relate to the keeping of birds per se. What have been reported are revenue offences.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about international trade. Of course, we are looking at that in the review and, indeed, the issue of bird fairs. He asked me about the premises that have been reported. I understand that published descriptions of various places do not relate to quarantine facilities. It is perfectly legitimate to make comments and, indeed, adverse comments if that is how people feel about the standard of facilities where birds are housed, but such comments do not, as far as I am aware, relate to quarantine facilities. I accept, however, that the impression is sometimes given that they do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a mass cull and vaccination. We are looking at the issue of having to cull a number of birds, as we did in July to achieve the speedy eradication of Newcastle disease. We are also looking at the question of whether there is a potential for vaccine, but no authorised vaccine is available at present. If a suitable vaccine were used, birds would have to be vaccinated twice with a minimum three-week separation period. Poultry would be dead by then anyway, because there is a seven-week lifespan. Of course, we will look again at vaccination, but it is not the immediate remedy that people may hope for.

The whole House should welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, including her confirmation that consideration is being given to a requirement that commercial poultry production take place indoors. Such a policy would require premature slaughter, would involve significant commercial and public cost, and would doubtless be based on the best veterinary and medical advice available to the Government. However, if we have to go down that road, does she agree that it would make sense for the Republic of Ireland to do so as well? If the position has to be decided at European level, it may be best to do so. Which EU member states have already implemented such a policy?

I cannot give my right hon. Friend a great deal of information, because the position is changing. It is for member states to make a risk assessment, not merely in their country but in its regions. Yesterday, or perhaps this morning, France advised poultry keepers in coastal areas and another area in the eastern region of France to take their poultry indoors, but that does not apply to the whole country. The issue of whether or not there are circumstances in the UK in which we would advise people to take such a step is something that we keep under review, as does every member state. As I said, member states that are closer to the wildfowl outbreaks that have been reported have taken action in some parts of their territory.

Unless I have been seriously misled, the outbreak occurred in my constituency, and there are lessons to be learned from the way in which it was handled. The right hon. Lady is rightly cautious about the company involved and the conviction for a serious fraud that resulted in a custodial sentence. However, one of my constituents put it to me that quarantine is our first line of defence. My constituents need to be able put their trust in people who are handling that quarantine, and they need to be confident that those individuals will obey the law. Health authorities have issued helpful guidance, but my own primary care trust was not told that the outbreak was less than five miles from its headquarters. We do not have anything to fear from disclosure, and the easiest way to avoid panic is to tell people the truth as quickly as possible.

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. Frankly, I do not have any idea whether the facility is within his constituency because I do not know where his constituency boundaries are. Nevertheless, in whatever constituency such an event occurs, he makes a valid and legitimate point and his constituents' questions are relevant. When people wish to set up a quarantine facility it is inspected in advance to check that it is adequate. When there are animals in the facility, there are regular inspections and monitoring by local veterinary inspectors and so on. The hon. Gentleman's constituents can be assured that such precautions are in place. They can also be assured that the review will look at whether those precautions are adequate and whether, for example, we should continue to permit the mixing of birds from different continents. I cannot comment on the position of his local primary care trust, but I repeat that the case was detected in a secure facility. Although there is proper concern about the long-term implications for human health of the avian virus we are not in circumstances where its feared consequences are apparent.

May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on initiatives and interventions, as well as her Department's readiness to make a further response? Has the Department duly engaged with the relevant devolved Administrations and the not-so-devolved Administration in Northern Ireland? Will she assure us that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland and its Minister will not be restricted or restrained from taking more stringent or specific action, particularly if they wish to do so in concert with the authorities in the Irish Republic?

I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in contact with the devolved Administrations, who have offered helpful co-operation. They will consider whether there is any further contribution that they wish to make to the assessment and handling of such cases.

The Secretary of State has just announced a review of the quarantine procedures, yet in her statement she said that measures to deal with avian influenza were fundamentally sound. If that was the case according to the original analysis, why, following the first testing of the system, does it have to be reviewed? As for scenario-playing, how many times has she played the scenario of what to do, and what lessons has she learned from that exercise?

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the scenarios. We had what one might call a live scenario involving Newcastle disease in the summer, as I mentioned earlier. He asks why the review. The position is changing. The procedures are basically sound—they worked in eradicating the outbreak of Newcastle disease at the beginning—but with regard to avian flu, it is a moving picture. We are seeing developments in what is thought to be the epidemiological understanding of the spread of that virus in wild birds, so we thought it right to reassess what we believe to be potentially a new situation, and certainly an evolving situation. He and his Committee, as well as the House, would be critical of us if we were not saying that, in the light of the event that has occurred, we should reassess not only the event itself, but whether there are issues about our quarantine rules that we ought to reconsider, because it is a changing situation.

My right hon. Friend will agree that there have been some astonishing scare stories and headlines in the press about avian influenza. She would probably also agree that, as a result, there has been widespread fear and public confusion, in about equal measure, about these issues. Does she agree that, although such scare stories might sell newspapers, it is vital that her Department undertake a concerted and vigorous public education effort to increase public understanding of avian influenza and to draw clear distinctions between that and potential pandemic influenza among humans—related but very different issues? The public need to understand both those relationships and those differences.

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the public get a clearer idea of the significance of avian flu and the distinction. We are making information available in the House for all Members—I hope it is already here, but if not, it soon will be—with an indication of all the steps we are taking. I will not bore the House with all of it, but guidance on biosecurity and surveillance has gone out to a range of organisations and to vets. Advertisements have been placed in trade publications and so on, and there is the leaflet that we issued a few days ago for individual poultry keepers. I take my hon. Friend's point that all these measures are aimed at those who have a particular interest in the trade or those who are poultry keepers. It is important for all of us to do everything we can to get across information to the general public.

I was a little alarmed at an exchange that I heard a few days ago, in which the prime question that seemed to spring to the mind of the questioner was, "Is there someone who is to blame for this?" Let us bear it in mind that the situation is of concern and the Government are taking steps to deal with it, but it is important that the public understand that what we are seeing is something of a development in avian influenza that we do not in any sense take lightly and are considering very seriously, but which is more of a risk to birds than it is to people.

The Minister will appreciate that the poultry industry right across the United Kingdom has grown dramatically over the past five to 10 years, so can she assure the House that she will ensure that there is adequate veterinary supervision not only at the rearing stage but in the production and manufacturing process, and that if something were to happen, the Government are prepared with extra veterinary staff?

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that it is part of our overall contingency plan, which he will find on my Department's website and which we published in the House in July, that there are arrangements, should they be required—let us hope they never are—to supplement the veterinary facilities that are available now with other outside help.

The proposed ban on live poultry sales is prudent and understandable, but will cause a great deal of difficulty for the poultry industry at this critical time of the year. What advice will her Department give to the commercial poultry trade about movement of poultry, which will become critical if, as she suggests, it may be necessary to move all poultry indoors? Many producers do not have the accommodation that they require. On a different matter, what help is being given to those eastern European and central Asian countries where bird flu is more endemic and where the problem originates?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what advice will be given, as that is a matter not for me but for the veterinary and scientific experts. I can assure him that we are in touch with people who are engaged in wild bird fairs and so on, and with the poultry industry. He made a valuable point about the scale of the facilities available. That is exactly the kind of thing that is being discussed. I assure him that my Department and our officials will do everything we can to maintain the balance of proper protection and proper security precautions with understanding for the commercial necessity. I can also tell him that there is a great deal of contact with, as he rightly says, countries where disease is more endemic. I believe I am right in saying that various expert scientific advisers, not from my Department but more independently and outside, are in contact with such countries and there is discussion with them to try to help them deal with some of the issues.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that, should a cull be required, we are adequately prepared for the disposal of carcases? This is not a party political or polemical point. The experience in rural and remote north-west Wales relating to the introduction of the fallen stock scheme does not inspire confidence within the agricultural industry.

I can reassure the House that that is one of the issues that is part of our contingency plan. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about some of the early handling of the fallen stock scheme, because some concern was expressed. Although we may be talking about large numbers if a commercial flock, for example, were affected, we are not talking about animals or birds of quite the same size.

Are not the Government in danger of being seen as gravely complacent on the matter, given that from that very Dispatch Box yesterday we heard Ministers say that they would commit £17 million of taxpayers' money to promote electoral reform, yet all we have heard about today is a few leaflets being sent out? Is the Secretary of State not in danger of sending out a very weak message when the country needs a strong one?

No. Of course there is always a danger in life and in government of being accused, particularly by people who want to make the accusation whether or not it is valid, of being complacent or of not doing enough, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that those who are affected by the precautions on which my Department is insisting feel that that is the case.

I am sure the Minister will agree that fears, especially unfounded fears, need to be allayed and that openness is what we need in the matter. I welcome her statement today, as far as it goes. Have orders been issued in the civil service that jabs should be taken by all civil servants? My information is that in Northern Ireland that has happened, which has led people to ask whether there will be favouritism if we are faced with a pandemic. That fear needs to be allayed.

No, there is no recommendation that all civil servants should be vaccinated. Indeed, we do not have an appropriate vaccine at present, because nobody knows what vaccine would be needed, since we do not know what virus we might be dealing with. It is certainly the case, however, that we have advised those who are poultry keepers that they should consider both their own biosecurity and their own precautions. That is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about openness, reminding me that I did not address that when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised it. We must keep a balance between what will help us to maintain proper precautions and biosecurity, and clarity of information. It has never been the practice of my Department to be explicit about precisely where a disease outbreak might have taken place, because one does not want a lot of people tramping over a potential disease site.

May I press the Minister on the question of a vaccine, particularly for those working in the poultry industry? I appreciate that there is some uncertainty because of the science around a vaccine, but can she be clearer about under what circumstances a vaccine would be made available to employees in the poultry industry, and what steps she is taking to ensure that, were that deemed necessary and appropriate, it is readily available.

It is part of our contingency plan that, if there were an outbreak, consideration would have to be given to that and whether there is an appropriate vaccine in all the circumstances is kept under review. One of the first things that we did when we heard about the event in secure quarantine was to ensure that the work force dealing with that facility was advised to take antiviral measures.

With other hon. Members, I am concerned about the management of the quarantine centre in Essex and general quarantine practice, particularly that birds that died during the quarantine period were put into cold storage, waiting for a convenient time for a veterinary investigation to take place. Birds could have been released from quarantine, showing no symptoms but incubating the disease that they caught from the birds that died. Surely birds that die during quarantine should be investigated immediately.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, so let me try to make matters as clear as possible. I take his point about the investigation on the birds being carried out straight away, but it is standard procedure, and has been for many years, that they should be frozen until examination. However, there has been some misinformation on the point. If, as happened in the quarantine facility that we are discussing, one set of birds is in quarantine and another set of birds is brought in, the quarantine period for the whole lot restarts when the second set arrives, and no birds are released until that quarantine period has expired. In addition, apart from that extended quarantine period, if there are any outstanding tests—tests are carried out on birds that die in quarantine—the birds are still not released until the results of those outstanding tests are confirmed. All of that, and whether it is a good thing to pool the samples and so on, will be considered in our review of how our quarantine facilities operate. It is understandable because it is not always easy to follow matters through, but there has been quite a lot of reporting about the birds having been released early. No, they were not near the end of their quarantine period, and while tests were outstanding—which there would be if there were dead birds—they would not have been released until the test results were known.

The Secretary of State said that bird shows will be banned until further notice, but she knows that we are fortunate in having a large number of bird sanctuaries, zoos and bird exhibits in botanical gardens. How will such organisations be affected by the ban and can she assure me that, in the event of an outbreak or a decision to close the exhibits, any compensation scheme would cover those organisations and the loss of revenue to them?

It is my understanding that, at present, birds in zoos and so on are not affected, but we are in discussion with stakeholders from a range of facilities with a range of concerns and the hon. Lady has identified a new one. I am grateful to her for raising the issue of compensation because her right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked about that and I did not get round to the answer. Compensation is not available in the circumstances that she describes. With regard to an incident of disease where some birds die but others are not affected, compensation is available only for birds that do not have the disease. That is an incentive to keep birds healthy and to have strong biosecurity, because there would not be compensation for birds that get a disease and have to be culled.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require internet service providers and other commercial organisations providing access to the internet to declare whether or not they have taken steps to prevent access to web sites containing indecent images of children; and for connected purposes.

The effect of the Bill is to require every internet service provider to declare in its company's annual reports and on its corporate website whether it is actively pursuing measures intended to prevent its customers from obtaining access to known child pornography websites. The Bill would not compel ISPs to take such measures, but would require them only to say whether they are taking such measures.

Let us not be under any illusion. The situation surrounding internet child pornography is appalling. Just two years ago, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children estimated that 20,000 new images of child pornography go online every week—20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape every single week. There are now hundreds of pay-per-view child pornography sites and thousands of free sites filled with images that would make most people physically sick.

Operation Ore, the massive police investigation into child internet pornography, identified over 7,000 people in the UK, including judges, doctors and teachers, who used their credit cards to download images of children being abused or even killed for their gratification. Police believe that that is the tip of the iceberg. Those who download such images say that they have committed no crime, but every single vile picture that includes babies and children being raped and tortured has destroyed an innocent life. Through the internet, criminal gangs are making money out of this misery. That has gone unchallenged for too long and the time has come to right this wrong.

Until recently, the technological challenges to solving all or part of the problem have been formidable. Yet thanks to recent advances, the end of child pornography on the net is now in sight. Over a year ago, BT proved conclusively that the technology now exists to allow ISPs to block access to child pornography on the internet. This effective filtering system, called Cleanfeed, has been live for over 18 months, and allows the user to enjoy the full advantages of the internet minus illegal websites. By blocking the connection between the site and the user, child pornography becomes inaccessible. Instantly, supply will be cut off from demand and the illegal act of producing child pornography will become unprofitable.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) asked the Prime Minister about BT's Cleanfeed last July, he answered positively, welcoming her efforts and BT's efforts and stating his intention to act on the issue by meeting the ISPs. I am pleased to be part of a Government who have taken such a strong stance against child pornography. By increasing the maximum penalties for making, distributing and showing indecent photographs of children, as well as investing in high-tech crime fighting solutions, the Government have repeatedly shown that they are committed to tackling this repugnant crime.

While I commend the Government on their approach in trying to prevent access to these sites, we need more urgency in ensuring that ISPs act now. I commend those ISPs that have used the available technology to block such sites. AOL, BT, Yahoo and Vodafone are models of good corporate citizenship. However, too many ISPs—possibly as many as 20 per cent.—have not responded to the challenge and still do very little to block child pornography sites. For every day that they delay, more children are being abused, so the Bill is a wake-up call to them. It is not designed to force ISPs to adopt the technology or tell us what technology they use. We want them only to state whether or not they have taken the simple and effective steps necessary to block child pornography

The Bill is intended primarily as a public accountability mechanism. All UK companies have to make a range of declarations in their annual reports—for example, on health and safety issues or carbon emissions. From that perspective, this is not a revolutionary idea. Although I am interested in a company's policies on global warming, if it happens to be an ISP, there is at least one other aspect of its activities that is more immediately relevant and of interest—what it is doing to end the terrible trade in illegal child sex abuse images.

If an ISP had good reason for not doing everything that it reasonably could to block access to illegal child abuse images, the Bill would not compel it to change its policies. I am sure that the ISP concerned would stand ready to explain its stance to its customers. Nevertheless, I wonder how many company directors or shareholders would be happy at the thought that they are required to declare publicly that they are doing nothing to stop child sex abuse images reaching their customers. The public, parents and policy makers are all entitled to know who is trying to kill off the trade in illegal child abuse images and who is not.

Some have argued that this is about the freedom of the net. The Bill is not a pretext for state censorship of the net, but child abuse and rape are illegal. As the head of the NSPCC's specialist investigation service says,

"we all have a duty to these children and to fail to protect them is a crime in itself."

Providing this information would enable the public to make reasoned choices about which internet service providers to use.

The Bill is not a magic button to eradicate child pornography, but the technology exists to limit access, and it is effective. Users have a right to know whether it is being used so that they can make informed choices. I believe that peer pressure and parent power can prevail. BT, the NSPCC, NCH and others believe that child abuse can be severely reduced, but we have to it make happen. It is our responsibility and we need to act now. This is a wake-up call to the slow learners in the ISP community. We will continue to put pressure on them and to name and shame as necessary. I, and many hon. Friends from other parties, stand ready to press for regulation if action is not taken.

The prize on offer is a great one. If people cannot reach the websites to buy child sex abuse images, the gangsters who are behind the trade will stop systematically arranging for children to be raped purely so they can photograph or film it in order to get new supplies for sale. These guys are only in it for the money that they get by exploiting our children. We need to deprive them of that shop window, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Margaret Moran, Anne Snelgrove, Helen Goodman, Kitty Ussher, Sandra Gidley, Ian Stewart, Judy Mallaber, Lynda Waltho, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Paul Burstow, Sir George Young and Martin Salter.

Control of Internet Access (Child Pornography)

Margaret Moran accordingly presented a Bill to require internet service providers and other commercial organisations providing access to the internet to declare whether or not they have taken steps to prevent access to web sites containing indecent images of children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 67].

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill seeks to place our counter-terrorist legislation on a permanent and secure basis. I should say at the outset that I am well aware that Members on both sides of the House have doubts about two particular aspects of the Bill: first, the definitions of terrorism and glorification and how we describe them; and, secondly, the length of time that somebody may be detained before charge, and proposed amendments in that respect. I will come to those issues later in my speech, but I should say now that I am ready to give way to debate them at the relevant time today, although of course the major debates will take place in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House.

The Government have said all along that in a matter as important as this legislation we want to proceed on the basis of consensus. In that spirit, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others, for the constructive tone that they adopted over the summer.

I made a commitment to bring forward further counter-terrorism legislation earlier this year during the passage of the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Preparations for the Bill were already well under way in early July this year, and I set out a list of measures to the Opposition spokespeople on 15 July. I am grateful to them both for the constructive response that they were able to give. I also made it clear that we were consulting the police and intelligence agencies in the light of the terrorist attacks and would consider whether additional measures were required. On that basis, I sent out a draft Bill to the Opposition and to Committee Chairs on 15 September.

In the light of the helpful comments that we received from a variety of sources, on 6 October I set out some revised proposals in respect of the offence of glorification. On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary published a paper setting out anti-terrorism laws in other countries, which I hope will help to inform today's debate. In the same spirit, through the usual channels we agreed a substantial amount of time to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House.

That is how we reached the stage that we are at today. In addressing the central issue that we face, I must start from the fundamental premise that there is a serious terrorist threat that has to be addressed. From New York, Nairobi, Sharm el-Sheik, Istanbul, two offences in Bali—one recently—Madrid, and our own events in London this July, we know of the existence of that terrorist threat. As we legislate to address it, we must do so on the basis, first, of clarifying the values and society that we are seeking to defend, and, secondly, of identifying the threat with which we have to deal.

Of all the societies throughout the world, perhaps that of the United Kingdom is the society that laid the basis for the values that we here seek to defend: valuing and building free speech and freedom of expression, including a free media; believing in a society that respects all faiths, races and beliefs; believing in a society founded on the rule of law; wanting every citizen to have a democratic stake in our society; valuing the free economy, which has built prosperity, including high-quality public services on which we all depend; and valuing the fact that women can play a full role in our society. We all know that our society, based on those values, will continue to evolve and develop. We also know that we can all point to aspects of our society that fall short of those aspirations. However, people on all sides of politics have struggled over the centuries to achieve the values that we celebrate today.

The society that we have built, with the values that it embodies, is not slight nor passing but deeply rooted and profound. I emphasise that those values are embraced by the overwhelming majority of our citizens, from whatever faith group or minority ethnic group they come. Indeed, most of those who migrated to our country did so precisely because they wanted to embrace the values that I just set out. Our society is characterised by common values but diverse backgrounds, faiths and lifestyles. It has been a stunningly successful model of integration, despite regular challenges.

If one compares the United Kingdom of the 1950s, before significant migration took place, with the United Kingdom of today, one sees that in many key parts of life and endeavour—our businesses, our design, our literature, our food; there are too many to name—the vibrancy of diversity has powered creativity and economic success. I emphasise again, however, that that has always happened within the framework of our common democratic values.

Some aspects of the Bill create further concerns that the Government are too willing to accept recommendations from the security forces without adequately scrutinising them. Control orders and evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are two examples of that. Will the Home Secretary make it clear why he believes that the detention period without charge should be extended to 90 days?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I began, but I said then that I would deal specifically with the 90-day point when I reached that part of my speech. I shall do that.

The Home Secretary is rightly dealing with the theme of values. What about the value to which Lord Carlile referred when he criticised the excessive use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000? He described its use as a substantial encroachment into the reasonable expectation of the public at large that they would face police intervention in their lives only if there was a reasonable suspicion that they would commit a crime. Is not that value threatened if events such as those at the Labour party conference or the instance of the person who was told that she could not walk on a cycle path occur?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman adopts that tone. However, he is right to cite Lord Carlile because his report is the basis on which we deal with legislation on all such matters. We will continue to pay serious attention to his comments on section 44 and other aspects of our proposals because it is his role to report to Parliament and to the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member.

Our type of democratic society has been created over many years and all parts of our community embrace and support it. I argue even more strongly that the ambition for democratic society has driven enormous political and social change in the past 30 years throughout the world. In those 30 years, fascist or militaristic rule in Greece, Spain and Portugal in southern Europe has been succeeded by democracy; apartheid South Africa has been succeeded by democracy; colonialist southern Africa has been replaced by democracy; the totalitarian states of central and eastern Europe have been succeeded by democracy; Latin and central American dictatorship has been replaced by democracy, and, even in south-east Asia, democracy has replaced dictatorship. Democracy and the need to protect our democracy is at the heart of the Bill.

I understand perfectly well that, in each of those parts of the world, massive problems remain. However, those enormous changes, which have occurred across the planet in one generation, prove that change for the good can happen, and, moreover—and more important—without violence or bloodshed in many cases. It is important for this generation to assert that. I repeat that the fight for democracy is at the core of those great changes.

The Home Secretary is making an important point. Does he also accept that this country has an important tradition of being a place where people have a right of asylum and where people can proselytise to get rid of oppressive regimes throughout the world? Does he agree that many such people were labelled as terrorists but later lauded as freedom fighters for achieving change? Will he assure me that the Bill will not criminalise those who plead for decency and change in their societies?

I give that reassurance and I shall revert to that point later. I celebrate the various values of freedom of expression that are at the core of our society for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend states. If he will be patient, I shall deal with the need to defend those values against those who seek to destroy them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that all the historical events that he listed involved acts of terrorism according to the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 and that they would all be culpable under the Bill? Glorifying, inciting, encouraging or trying to emulate those events would, in some people's view, be offences under the Bill.

I greatly respect my hon. Friend; we served together on the Treasury Committee, but he is wrong. If he goes through the list in detail, he will see that the striking fact is that those changes were made by democratic processes and with little violence.

Does the Home Secretary accept that, in contrast to the society that he has just described, the terrorism that threatens this country is based on the fascist-type ideology of hatred and an obsessive wish to destroy the west and modernity?

I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. I shall develop that point further because it is fundamental when considering the Bill.

The House welcomes the progress to democracy in many parts of the world, but it is relatively recent and we cannot be sure that it is permanent. I am one of those who, in the 1980s, regularly produced material that praised the then Government of Nicaragua for their work in education, health and tackling poverty. That Government came to power in a revolution in which a brutal dictatorship was overthrown. Were those events to repeat themselves, I cannot understand how I would not be guilty of an offence under clauses 1 and 2.

With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, he is wrong. We have had that conversation privately and in the Select Committee that he chairs. I respect the motivation in Nicaragua—it also applies to other parts of the world—to which he refers, but I do not accept his point. To argue that what he described would in any way violate the terms of the Bill is to misread the measure.

The fight for democracy is at the core of the changes that have occurred. It is precisely because we have developed a highly successful model of integration, which enables people of all backgrounds and faiths to prosper and live together within the safeguard of common values, that our society has become an affront and a reproach to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living is right. We should make no mistake: the threat that we face is ideological. It is not driven by poverty, social exclusion or racial hatred.

Those who attacked London in July and those who have been engaged in or committed the long list of previous terrorist atrocities were not the poor and the dispossessed. They were, for the most part, well educated and prosperous. Terrorists in the UK have also been ethnically and nationally diverse. Ideas drive those people forward. To revert to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) correctly made, unlike the liberation movements of the post world war two era, they are not in pursuit of political ideas such as national independence from colonial rule, equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and, in many cases, have been negotiated.

However, there can be no negotiation about the recreation of the caliphate in this country, the imposition of sharia law, the suppression of equality between the sexes or the ending of free speech. Those values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation. It is equally wrong to claim, as some do, that the motivation of al-Qaeda and its allies is some desire to seek justice in the middle east—the part of the world where progress has been most difficult to achieve in the past 30 years and where the litany of change that I read out has made so little headway. Al-Qaeda and its allies have no clear demands for the middle east. The only common thread in their approach is a violent and destructive opposition to democracy in any form. They find democracy in Palestine abhorrent and seek to destroy it.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Not at the moment.

Al-Qaeda finds democracy in Israel abhorrent and seeks to destroy it. It finds democracy in Afghanistan abhorrent and seeks to destroy it. Now it finds the democracy in Iraq, which the United Nations is trying to support and establish, so abhorrent that it does whatever it can to try to destroy it.

rose—

I shall not give way at the moment.

Al-Qaeda's methods, too, are different. It recognises no common bonds with people who have different beliefs and its members are prepared to kill indiscriminately. Indeed, mass murder is their explicit objective—the measure of success in their terms. Their methods of recruitment bear more comparison to self-destructive cults than political movements. However, we must acknowledge that their modern nihilism is innovative, flexible and cunning. Al-Qaeda and the networks that are inspired by it approach the task with all the resources of modern technology and all the focus of modern zealotry.

The most important conclusion to draw from this analysis is that there is no particular Government policy decision, or even an overall policy stance, which we could change in order somehow to remove our society from the al-Qaeda firing line. Its nihilism means that our societies would cease to be a target only if we were to renounce all the values of freedom and liberty that we have fought to extend over so many years. Our only answer to this threat must be to contest and then to defeat it, and that is why we need this legislation.

I do not disagree with what the Home Secretary is saying about al-Qaeda, but he must realise that the terrorism covered by the Bill also extends to overseas terrorism. There might well be movements designed to displace by violent means the Administration in Burma or that of President Mugabe. There are many people in the House who would want to see both those regimes displaced and who might countenance violent action being taken to achieve that. Does the Home Secretary want to turn those people into criminals?

Wanting to change the regime in Zimbabwe or Burma is the legitimate right of every citizen of this country. We might have different views about which regimes would qualify, but I would argue that there is almost a duty for democrats to argue for change in certain areas. It would not be right, however, to say that blowing up a tourist bus or a tube train, or taking action of that type, was a legitimate way of changing the regime of Robert Mugabe or whoever. That would not be acceptable—

What about action against Mugabe's security forces? What about action against his police? Or action against the police in Burma—

Order. Has the Secretary of State accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention?

I have accepted it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should formally have accepted it earlier than I did.

Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to say that there is room for discussion about where the line should be drawn between peaceful and non-peaceful, and violent and non-violent action. I shall return to those issues when I come to the definition of terrorism in the Bill.

I suggest that the best way to contest this threat is by building and strengthening the democracy of our society, by isolating extremism in its various manifestations, by strengthening the legal framework within which we contest terrorism, and by developing more effective means to do so. That is why, particularly since 7 July but also before then, we have worked very hard—my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench in particular—to build our relations with the Muslim communities and the communities of all faiths, and to discuss how we can build our democracy and strengthen it so that all communities, young and old, men and women, have a genuine, strong stake in our society.

That means that we have to promote a society based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another and one race for another. It also means promoting the view that democracy is the means of making change in our society. We therefore need to take steps to isolate extremist organisations and those individuals who promote extremism. In so doing, it is essential for us to work closely with the mainstream faith communities and to understand their preoccupations. That is why we need legislation to outlaw incitement to hatred based on religion or race. We need legislation that makes it clear that the glorification of terrorism is not a legitimate political expression of view. We wish to encourage faiths to pursue their faith openly and directly.

We want to attack the focus of extremist organisations. We are working, with international allies as necessary, to identify the networks and individuals who are promoting extremism, and we will use legal power to disrupt and weaken them. We intend to remove from the United Kingdom those foreign citizens who are using their time in our country to promote extremism, although that course of action is not legally straightforward. All the measures we have taken will further isolate and weaken those extremists who wish to promote terrorism as an appropriate form of activity. However, we need to strengthen the legal framework within which we can address those issues.

Throughout all this, I assert the need to retain and strengthen our human rights and the values that underlie them, but, at the same time, I say that the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism is at least as important as the right of the terrorist to be protected from torture and ill-treatment. Our peoples expect not only the protection of individual rights but the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. We need a legal framework that seeks to address the difficult balance in relation to those rights. We cannot properly fight terrorism with one legal hand tied behind our back, or give terrorists the unfettered right to defend themselves as they promote and prepare violent attacks on our society. That is why we are proposing legal changes in Britain to outlaw acts preparatory to terrorism and terrorist training.

I share the Secretary of State's objectives entirely. I agree that there now has to be a meeting engagement with the terrorists, and that we have to lick them here. However, I am concerned about the way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beith—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Is the Secretary of State not alarmed at the very high number of people being detained for acts that contravene the anti-terrorism provisions which, on closer examination, are quite properly judged to be common law offences? He will have my support in the Lobby tonight, but this matter requires much greater examination.[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant to say

I did not dismiss the concerns of the right hon. Member for what we must now call Beith-upon-Tweed. In fact, I did the opposite; I paid respect to what he and his political friend, Lord Carlile, had said. I also said that the Government would seek to address those points and criticisms.

In regard to the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, not a lot has been done by the Government, despite the fact that those concerns have been expressed by many for a long time. Between April and June 2004, 2,147 searches were carried out under section 44. No arrests were made on the ground of anything to do with terrorism; 30 were made for other reasons. The following year, the figures were similar. Some of us were very concerned when the Terrorism Bill was introduced in 2000. We were told that it would be used very rarely, yet it was soon being used against peaceful, flag-waving people demonstrating against a Chinese Government official visiting London.

I think that I have said this about three times now, but I will say it again: we take seriously the points that were raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and by Lord Carlile. There are important issues that need to be addressed. The Association of Chief Police Officers is working specifically on them, and I shall address them. I agree that there are issues that need to be addressed.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Not at the moment. I will give way to my hon. Friend in a while.

Before I finish outlining the general position, I should point out that the final element of our strategy for combating terrorism is the need to work internationally. This week is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, and some Members were privileged enough to go to St. Paul's on Monday for a service of thanksgiving and rededication—I emphasise the word "rededication"—to celebrate that anniversary. Lord Ashdown, in his capacity as high representative in Bosnia, was asked to give an address, in which he said:

"We shall be lucky to reach the 70th anniversary of the United Nations without having to deal with chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism."

That was a chilling remark, but not a foolish or stupid one, and it is one against which we need to prepare ourselves.

The United Nations is also seeking to prepare itself. United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, adopted by the Security Council on 14 September this year, addresses that very question, on behalf not of an individual Government but of the whole of the United Nations, precisely because of the threat that Lord Ashdown described. That resolution reaffirms

"the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

It condemns

"in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed".

The United Nations Security Council also condemns

"in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and"—

repudiates—

"attempts at the justification or glorification . . . of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts".

The resolution expresses deep concern

"that incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerances poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights . . . and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the United Nations and all States",

and emphasises

"the need to take all necessary and appropriate measures in accordance with international law".

It reaffirms

"that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".

And finally, the resolution:

"Calls upon all states to adopt such measures"—

as we are doing today—

"as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts

(b) Prevent such conduct

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering they have been guilty of such conduct".

That is a very serious statement.

I take it from what my right hon. Friend says that any person in any country of the world who advocates terrorism would be subject to arrest under this Act should they arrive in this country? Would that be true if Pat Robertson, the American who advocated the assassination of democratically elected President Chavez of Venezuela, were to enter Britain?

I am not going to comment on individual cases—

He's on our side.

Anybody who thinks that Pat Robertson is on my side is very wrong indeed. I am prepared publicly to deplore Pat Robertson's remarks, as I think that they were an outrage. In answer to the central question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), yes, that is the case—advocating terrorism is not acceptable under this law.

The misgivings of many Members of the House relate to the final part of what the Home Secretary said about necessary and appropriate means. Will he confirm that of the 900 or so people who have been arrested and detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, there has not been a single successful prosecution made for membership of any organisation on the burgeoning proscribed list, which we are told must be banned internationally. What we have done is to create a culture of fear, and a sense of division and vulnerability, that has nothing whatever to do with successful action against terrorism.

I do not accept that. I am coming to proscription in a moment, and I will deal with my hon. Friend's point about proscribed organisations. I also observe, however, that the United Nations, in its action against terrorism, has listed proscribed individuals and organisations in a variety of ways.

Because of the need for this action, it behoves all parties in the House to carry through the ambitions of the Security Council resolution, which the Bill seeks to do. In all candour, I say to the Liberal Democrats, with whom we have sought to work closely—and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester, who has also sought to work closely with us to address these issues—that their decision to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill weakens that common front of democratic politics against terrorism. Let me tell the House why I say that.

The Liberal Democrats have legitimate arguments about the definition of terrorism in relation to the term "glorification", and about the extension of the time limit for detention from 14 days to 90 days. I know that the hon. Member for Winchester has doubts, as he has said publicly and privately to me, about the wisdom of extending that time limit, and he has been perfectly fair about that. In relation to the structure of debates in the House, however, I do not believe that such doubts, which will be expressed, voted on and considered in Committee and on Report—and which, if so serious, could lead his hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading—ought to break the unity of the House in seeking to carry through the principle established on Second Reading. His leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), wrote to The Spectator on 22 October—which I thought was a spectacular thing for him to do—revealing that the Liberal Democrat shadow Cabinet was having

"a strategy meeting about how to provide the real opposition to the government while the Conservatives are mired in their leadership debate."

I am sure that they are not mired in it; the debates and discussions currently taking place on that matter are inspired and interesting.

If the Liberal Democrats want to provide real opposition to the Government, the way to do that is not to offer knee-jerk opposition to everything, but to work on the basis of principle, to carry things through and to debate things in a proper way. The principled position, in my view, is for the party to vote for Second Reading, and then vote against, as and when the hon. Member for Winchester thinks appropriate, on the particular measures later. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.

It is our judgment that real, principled opposition is about making a stand on the key issue of holding suspects without charge. We feel so strongly on that issue that we want to oppose the Bill's Second Reading tonight. It is still our long-term aim to achieve consensus, however, and we aim to work with the Home Secretary to find alternatives to this measure in the weeks ahead.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman does have a sincere intention in that respect, and is seeking agreement on some issues and trying to make positive proposals. He is absolutely entitled to do that. However, the time to address those questions is in Committee and on Report. If, in his view, the matter is resolved unsatisfactorily by the end of that process, he should vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I would understand that, but I do not understand why his colleagues have decided to vote against it on Second Reading.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that a number of Labour Members have grave reservations about this clause and about extending the period for which people can be kept in custody on no charge from 14 days to three months? Although many of us might vote for the Bill on Second Reading, we have grave reservations.

I certainly recognise that. I have discussed those reservations with a number of colleagues, and if I might say so, my hon. Friend put the position accurately and succinctly. The way to address such reservations is to accept that we need legislation, to have arguments and discussions inside our party and across the Floor of the House on the matters of concern, and in particular the 90-day limit and then to decide what to do.

I, too, will be voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am about the last person in the House to underestimate the dangers of terrorism, which some of us warned about long before what happened in the United States four years ago. On the three-month detention, however, will my right hon. Friend accept that the deep concern felt about that period is certainly not confined to the Liberal Democrats? Will there be further consultation between now and Committee to see whether an accommodation can be reached? If we want to reach a consensus, let us be frank: we will not reach a consensus on the 90 days, be it in this House, the other place or in the country at large. I hope that he can show some flexibility on that important issue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that it is right to be flexible. I have made it clear throughout that consensus is the right way to proceed, not only in our party, which is an often ambitious target, but even with Opposition Members. It would be better if we sent out a united and coherent message. In Committee, on Report and otherwise, I am ready to be flexible in discussions, if we can reach an agreement. Furthermore, it would be better if the House resolved the matter rather than left it to the other place, but that requires Members on both sides of the House to work constructively to reach agreement.

Allowing for people's anxieties, is not our track record that detention beyond seven days has been used very sparingly since that period was extended in 2004? Is not it fair to say that the real choice that might confront the House is whether to give an advantage to the police when trying to deal with complex terrorist investigations—an advantage that can be subject to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny—or to give that advantage to the terrorist?

My hon. Friend's assessment is correct. That will be one of the issues that we discuss later in the passage of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend talked about the strategy for fighting terrorism, the final part of which was the international element. The one thing that he missed out, however, is intelligence gathering, which experts tell us is a vital part of the strategy. In addition to concerns about section 44, does he accept that some clauses of the Bill limit the ability of our security services to gather intelligence from parts of the community that would otherwise come forward and provide intelligence?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct to put the gathering of intelligence at the centre of what we do. He is also entirely correct in the corollary of that point, which is that it is important to have close relationships with the community. I pay tribute to the work that he has done to achieve that since he entered the House, and particularly since July. I do not, however, accept his suggestion that our proposals would damage our ability to achieve it.