On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House about the availability of Herceptin on the NHS? Many women across the country will have believed from previous statements from the Secretary of State that the drug would be available on the NHS, but today's court judgment makes it clear that the law and the Department of Health's policy is that its availability should be subject to a postcode lottery.

The hon. Gentleman applied for an urgent question on this matter. I refused, and I gave no reason. I do not expect the argument to be pursued through a point of order. However, I remind him that there is health debate tomorrow, and he will be quite entitled to raise this very serious matter then.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice and specific help. What can be done to stop the growing contempt that Government Departments display to hon. Members, with information that should be supplied to us in the form of written answers being given to journalists first? On 31 January, I submitted a priority, named-day written question about a constituency private finance initiative scheme. I received a holding answer. Yesterday, 11 working days later, I rang up the relevant Minister's office. The staff there were very helpful and provided me with my answer in the evening. You can imagine my amazement that it took so long to receive that reply, notwithstanding what it says in "Erskine May", and when I discovered that on Monday—the day before I received my answer—a journalist from the local Essex Chronicle had telephoned the Department of Health's press department, and asked exactly the same question. The answer was e-mailed to him on Monday afternoon, but I did not get a reply from the Minister to the same question until Tuesday. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I think that that is a gross abuse. What can you do, as the defender of Back Benchers' rights, to stop such abuses?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I am very angry that information should have been given to a journalist before it was given to an hon. Member. The journalists in the House of Commons Press Gallery are looked after very well. They are given a great deal of information and have access to debates, the Order Paper and to statements, but they do not have rights before an hon. Member. That should be respected by Ministers and their Departments. I shall investigate this matter.

Hear, hear.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Renewable Energy Authority; to lay upon the Authority a duty to promote the use of renewable energy and energy conservation; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is intended as a contribution to the energy review and to climate change policy. It is only a ten-minute Bill so it cannot carry the full story on its face, but it relates to a series of measures that, if enacted, would deliver the aspirations of the 2003 energy White Paper and more, and render the building of a new fleet of nuclear reactors superfluous.

It is posited that by 2020 there will be a serious "generation gap" caused by a combination of generating plant closures, failure to achieve sufficient energy savings through increased energy efficiency, failure to reduce the demand for electricity and an insufficient deployment of renewable energy to fill the gap. There is a powerful lobby that draws the conclusion that the logical response is to build new nuclear stations to fill the generating gap and add to reductions in carbon emissions.

The Bill challenges those assumptions—first, that energy savings will not deliver enough and, secondly, that renewables cannot fill the gap. Both of those statements would probably be true if we continued with business as usual, but if we took firm action the outcome for both energy demand reduction and deployment of renewables could be dramatically different. Thus the theme of the Bill is that energy savings of 40 per cent. by 2020 are achievable, and renewable deployment of more than 20 per cent. by 2020 is achievable, given the right policy framework.

The centrepiece of the Bill is the creation of a new body, the renewable energy authority, with the remit of co-ordinating and driving all aspects of policy relating to the research and development and especially the deployment of renewable energy and amelioration of climate change. It would assume many of the current functions of the Department of Trade and Industry and those of some other bodies. It would drive the renewables option as effectively as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority drove nuclear power in Britain after the war. It would be dedicated to overcoming all the many obstacles that at present impede the progress of renewables.

The REA would undertake resource surveys of the uniquely rich marine energy resource around the UK coast, identifying prospective sites for generators and conducting environmental impact assessments. The REA would be empowered to license the sites to appropriate developers for the installation of generation equipment. The REA would have a co-ordinating role in ensuring the availability of appropriate grid access to those sites.

The REA would be accountable to Parliament through a Secretary of State for Energy—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy appreciates that I have promoted him, and I am glad to see him in his place—and it would be funded from carbon tax revenue as set out in the proposed fiscal measures that I will come to.

The planning and consenting regime both on and offshore needs reform and changes to the Town and Country Planning and Electricity Acts would flow from this Bill and would need to be reflected in the coming marine Bill. I propose that the REA should consider all applications for renewable generation, of an appropriate minimum capacity of, say, 50 MW and grid alterations exceeding 120 kV, and if judged to be suitable those would be "qualifying applications" for a streamlined and simplified planning and consenting procedure operating to a strict time scale.

The time from notification of outline planning to a decision would be nine months and the Secretary of State would make the decision if the relevant authority failed to deliver it in that time. In some cases, the Secretary of State would be the relevant authority, but the same time frame would apply.

Another large obstacle for renewables is the current configuration of the transmission grid and the protracted time involved in any major alterations. In addition to the planning aspects of grid restructuring, there would be duties on grid operators such that on receiving consent for installations for a generating plant the grid system operator nearest to the generator would be required to undertake a grid connection and any necessary reinforcement work to a time scale agreed with the generator, but not normally longer than a year. The grid system operator should provide priority access to the grid for renewable plant connected to it whenever it is generating, and should be under an obligation to buy the output of such plant. Those provisions reflect the German renewable energy Act. Grid system operators would be able to recoup their contractually agreed costs for providing grid access through transmission charges, agreed by Ofgem in consultation with the REA and the Secretary of State.

There are considerable market constraints, even for proven renewables such as offshore wind, and especially for the nascent marine technologies of wave and tidal stream power, as they have not yet had the time in development or the large-scale deployment to achieve the benefits from economies of scale to get their generating costs down to commercially competitive levels. They thus need more support in the market than the current ROC—renewable obligations certificate—regime can provide. Even the relatively mature offshore wind process needs the help of capital grants. The REA would be expected to oversee support arrangements to give investors confidence, and the revenue needed for that support would come from a carbon tax, which I shall describe.

I also propose a raft of measures to improve energy efficiency, which include a requirement for houses in multiple occupation to meet a minimum energy rating—the standard assessment procedure rating—to qualify for registration, and the prohibition of the sale and use of patio heaters. That probably sounds like a trifling and killjoy measure, but patio heaters account for 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year—as much as is saved through the changes in vehicle taxation. Their use of energy is entirely profligate and is simply directly to heat the atmosphere.

We need to enact the European Union directive on the energy performance of buildings. The only measures on energy conservation that Parliament has enacted have been through private Members' legislation or the application of EU directives. We have failed to address the matter properly in the past.

To fund the REA and provide market support arrangements without recourse to the Treasury, several fiscal measures are proposed for consideration, the central of which is a carbon tax. It has the support of the Royal Society, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology and the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. Coupling the carrot of carbon tax credits with the stick of a carbon tax will provide a method of incentivising the market for newer renewables. It would operate by charging carbon dioxide emitting generators on their output and using the revenue not only to fund the REA but also to provide carbon tax credits for newer renewable generating technologies, to help to give them market pull. Increasing the cost of carbon will also be an incentive for investment in carbon capture and storage. We could also take further measures to encourage the use of biofuels.

The UK has missed an enormous opportunity by not exploiting combined heat and power. The comparison between the thermal efficiency of Scandinavian countries and subsequent lower carbon dioxide emissions and the position in the UK is staggering. I advocate the establishment of a CHP obligation alongside the renewables obligation and the newly imposed transport fuels obligation.

My 10 minutes are quickly running out. I have been able to refer only to a few elements of my proposals, but they are intended as a sincere contribution to the energy review and I am confident that if they were enacted we would achieve what we need in terms of our energy policy and climate change.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Colin Challen, Mr. David Chaytor, Robert Key, Dr. Ian Gibson, Joan Walley, David Lepper, Helen Goodman and Mr. David Amess.

Energy

Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Renewable Energy Authority; to lay upon the Authority a duty to promote the use of renewable energy and energy conservation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 129].

I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and Government motions to disagree thereto and Lords amendment No. 34 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

I rise to urge right hon. and hon. Members to disagree to Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34, and to support amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 34. Amendments (a) and (b) are minor, tidying proposals and I do not intend to devote more time to them. The key issue is whether the House will agree with another place and seek to restore its original wording.

I shall remind the House how we got to this point. We passed counter-terrorist legislation in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, during the debates on which we said we would legislate to make prosecution easier, as required by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Page 53 of Labour's general election manifesto, on which we were elected, stated that

"we will introduce new laws to help catch and convict those involved in helping to plan terrorist activity or who glorify or condone acts of terror."

That was followed by the awful events of 7 July, which led naturally to a focus on the people who conducted those terrorist acts and on how they were recruited and incited, including through glorification.

With the agreement of all parties in the House, a new Bill was introduced in the autumn. Of course, there were difficult issues of freedom and security—we were able to agree with a lot that the Opposition said, but not all. Following that process, the House reached an agreement on the Bill, and that included a commitment to a review of the definitions of terrorism to be conducted by Lord Carlile and to reviews of the operation of the 2005 Act regime as well as a commitment to return to legislation, which will be introduced in the next Session, as I announced in a statement to the House a couple of weeks ago, and which was generally welcomed. I believe that that was a solid and stable basis on which to proceed, not only recognising the genuine differences of opinion but seeking to find a good way to make progress.

The Home Secretary said, as he did on the "Today" programme, that the House reached an agreement on these matters. Much as I enjoy reaching agreement with the Home Secretary, I recall that the Government had a majority of one, so I slightly question whether his use of the English language is correct.

I do not think that that majority was on this matter, but on Third Reading the House reached an agreement on the way to proceed that resolved all the questions about the Bill.

After Third Reading, the Opposition parties, which have a majority in the Lords, decided to make Lords amendments to unstitch the solid and stable decision of the elected Chamber. I confirm that the Government are—and were—ready to compromise to get cross-party agreement. That has been our general approach throughout the passage of the Bill, because if we can secure as much agreement as possible it is a big advantage to the country. However, we are not prepared to compromise on removing the word "glorification" from the Bill, which would be the effect of the Lords amendments.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech in due course. If he will allow me to make my speech, he will no doubt be able to say what he has to say.

We insist on using the word "glorification" not merely because it is a manifesto commitment, important though that is in the structure of our democracy, but because the word is specifically used in United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, which was passed on 14 September. The Security Council resolution speaks of

"Condemning also in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification . . . of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts".

The Government believe that the glorification of terror is an essential—I emphasise that word—method that is used by individuals and organisations that pursue terrorist ambitions and wish to get individuals such as the 7/7 bombers to commit to their suicidal and destructive ends.

The Home Secretary knows that I have strong views on human rights legislation. However, given that it exists and it is necessary to have clear and unambiguous provisions in relation to matters of such importance, will he explain why the Government have put the statement of compatibility with European convention on human rights on the front of the Bill when the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which Parliament has charged with examining such matters, has said that there is incompatibility with articles 5 and 10 of the convention? Why does he thus continue to pursue his arguments?

The order of events is quite clear. I gave the certificate on the basis of advice that I received, and that position stands. The Joint Committee published a report—yesterday, or perhaps today—that addressed the matter. It reached conclusions on some issues, but not on others. We will, of course, read the report carefully, but I have absolutely no reason to think anything but that my certification of the Bill's compatibility with the convention was entirely correct.

The Home Secretary will know that there is genuine concern in the ethnic minority community, especially the Muslim community, about the effects of the measure. Has he held meetings with the Muslim Council of Britain and other organisations that speak on behalf of the community to take on board their concerns, and to give them a detailed explanation of why the Government are implementing the measure and an assurance that it will not disproportionately affect members of the community?

My ministerial and official colleagues and I have held several meetings with the Muslim Council of Britain and a range of other Muslim organisations to discuss precisely that matter. There are concerns, as my hon. Friend correctly says, and I concede that not all of them have been met. However, I take a great deal of strength and fortitude from the fact that, both on the Bill and the general conduct of affairs in recent circumstances, a wide range of mainstream Muslim opinion supports us and condemns those who are extremists and glorifiers.

The Home Secretary understandably referred to the United Nations resolution, but will he explain a tautology in the reference that he cited? He quoted the phrase "justification or glorification", but that is the only part of the resolution that has in brackets behind it a further explanation: "apologie". The only translation of that word that I can find is justification in French, so the principle is being redefined, rather than extended.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The word "apologie" is French. As he knows, international agreements are produced in English and French, for obvious reasons. It is not a translation error because the word "glorification" is the English word in the internationally agreed text. The word has importance and significance.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No, I will not.

The question of what each word in any UN declaration means is ultimately a matter for the courts to resolve, but the word chosen by the United Nations—appropriately—was glorification, which is why I focus on that word.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and those in the community that it will not be possible to be guilty of the offence if one inadvertently uses language? Will he confirm that the mens rea required will be intention?

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. I will talk about the detail in a moment, but he is entirely correct. Part of the debate in this House and the other place has been the intent behind any of these acts. An inadvertent situation of the type that he mentions could not arise.

I was going to intervene on the Home Secretary to offer him the benefit of the fact that I am bilingual in French and English. I was simply going to point out to him that the word "apologie" cannot be translated as glorification. If that was what was done, it was bunkum.

I shall certainly take the opportunity to offer the hon. Gentleman's services to the United Nations as a translator. With his manifold talents in the law and translation, I am sure that he would be a great asset. Although we in the House would miss him greatly if he departed, I am sure that the United Nations would welcome his arrival.

Why is the Home Secretary placing such emphasis on the manifesto commitment? Yesterday, a majority of the Cabinet decided to renege on a manifesto commitment because they thought that certain things had been rather wrongly worked out. Why can he not take account of what the other place has said about this manifesto commitment and accept the sensible amendments that it put before us?

I am surprised that a Member of such long-standing and constitutional weight does not acknowledge the importance of manifesto commitments when considering Lords amendments. We were not considering such amendments yesterday and the decisions taken on a free vote went beyond manifesto commitments. I mention the manifesto commitment because there is a difference of opinion between the elected and unelected Chambers. Conventionally, and for good reasons that are accepted on both sides of the House, a manifesto commitment is an important consideration when hon. Members debate Lords amendments.

It was inappropriate of the Home Secretary to suggest on the radio this morning that Opposition Members are somehow soft on terrorism. We are worried that although the measures in the Bill may already be covered by other laws, more people who normally have absolutely nothing at all to do with terrorism might come under the Bill's footprint.

I will address the details in a moment, but on the question of being soft on terrorism, I advise the hon. Gentleman to prove his determination to fight terrorism by voting with the Government today.

The report to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred was the third report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published several weeks ago. That report addressed the Bill, but the report to which the Home Secretary referred was on renewals. The third report criticises the Bill and says that there is a high risk of it being outside the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights because of the use of the word "glorification". The Home Secretary cited the words "glorification" and "justification" in the UN resolution, so why do the definitions in clause 20 include no reference to justification? Is that because there are UN terms that even he considers to be too broad to be related to the offence?

I apologise to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) if I misunderstood the Committee report to which he was referring. Let me put the position on record. The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed doubts due to the lack of clear intent requirements in clauses 1 and 2. The Government have amended the Bill to make it clear that the offences can be committed only with intent or subjective recklessness, which I believe meets the Joint Committee's concerns.

I recognise that there are concerns—the issue is sensitive and I share the reservations that have been expressed to some extent. However, since we last debated the Bill we have seen the most blatant glorification of acts of terrorism—the events of 7 July. The House discussed that only last week. In other circumstances where there is less publicity, might there not be individuals and small groups who continue to glorify the horrors and atrocities of 7 July, and might not the law that my right hon. Friend proposes be necessary if the Opposition are wrong and the existing law does not cover such activities?

I shall deal with that point in more detail later, but my hon. Friend is entirely correct, without qualification, to say that we have to deal with the glorification of terror. If anything was needed to demonstrate that, it was the events of 7 July last year and how they happened. That is what the legislation is designed to do.

May I take my right hon. Friend back to what our hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) said, and my right hon. Friend repeated, about the importance of linking the offence in the clause with intent or reckless disregard? That change was made between Committee stage and Report. Although that is on the face of the Bill and it is what he is arguing today, in attempting to put water between what the Bill as passed by the Commons would do and what the Lords amendments would do Ministers have sometimes appeared to say that the Bill is intended to go further—that it would outlaw glorification of terrorism rather than outlaw glorification of terrorism where there is an intention to encourage terrorism or reckless disregard in that respect. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Bill as he wants it to be passed will not outlaw the glorification of terrorism, but will outlaw the glorification of terrorism where the intent is to encourage people to commit terrorist acts?

My hon. Friend is correct. The caution, which I accept, is for Ministers, including me—

I mentioned no names.

No names, no pack drill. My hon. Friend cautions us to speak carefully. He is right and I accept what he says.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman has intervened already and I want to make progress.

The reason we made a manifesto commitment and why we think glorification should be dealt with as I propose is that people who glorify terrorism help to create a climate in which terrorism is regarded as somehow acceptable. They help to persuade impressionable members of their audiences that they have a moral duty to kill innocent people in pursuit of whatever political or religious ideology they espouse. In recent times, we have seen threats from extremists who claim to represent Islam. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), leaders of the Muslim community in the UK and elsewhere have, quite properly, explained that such views do not represent true Islam. None the less, all too many people may be influenced by those who glorify terrorism and conclude that they have a duty to kill and injure innocent bystanders in the misguided belief that they are bound to do so by their faith. Our duty to those we represent is to do everything we can to prevent that from happening.

Both Houses have agreed that there will be an offence of encouraging terrorism and that the offence will cover both direct and indirect encouragement. I am, however, concerned by the changes made to clause 1 and replicated in clause 21 by the Members of the other place. The Lords removed a provision which clarified that statements that constituted indirect encouragement included statements that glorified acts of terrorism and were statements from which those members of the audience who heard them could reasonably be expected to infer that what was being glorified was being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances. That was a clear provision in the Bill considered by the Lords. Taken with a definition of "glorification" in clause 20, it made what was being described perfectly clear. Moreover, it made it abundantly clear to everyone who had heard about the offence that glorifying terrorism in such a way that others might emulate it would no longer be tolerated.

Instead of that clear provision, which sent a strong message to all those who are involved in recruiting terrorists, the Lords inserted an alternative provision stating that

"'indirect encouragement' comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it."

That alternative is unacceptable for three main reasons. I will explain those reasons in a moment, but perhaps I should first remind the House that glorification features in the Bill as an example of what is encompassed by the concept of indirect encouragement. It is not self-contained. Glorification as an offence is a subset of indirect encouragement as an offence and can be committed only if the conditions surrounding the main offence are met, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). Key among those conditions is the requirement that there must be an intention that others should be induced to commit terrorist offences or subjective recklessness on that point. Glorification without intention of emulation or without subjective recklessness cannot constitute an offence.

As I said, the Opposition's preferred form of words is unacceptable for three reasons. First, instead of being an exemplary description of what indirect encouragement could be, it is an exhaustive description. In other words, the offence is limited so that it is committed by making available to the public a statement directly encouraging terrorism, or a statement indirectly encouraging it, but only by actually describing it in such a way that the listener will infer that he should emulate it. The Government drafted the offence carefully so that it would cover all statements that were either an encouragement to terrorism or another form of inducement to terrorism. As we designed the offence, it covered statements that constituted direct and indirect encouragement and that made explicit references to terrorism, as well as those that encouraged terrorism but did not refer explicitly to it.

Let me put the argument as simply as I can. The use of the word "describing" in the Lords amendment means that the provision would not catch, as the original wording would, glorification, praise or celebration of an act of terrorism that does not actually describe the act. Similarly, the reference in the wording inserted by the other place to "listener" also limits the scope of the provision. It confines the definition to statements that are capable of being heard and so, for example, would exclude statements written on placards or published on websites.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not. The hon. Gentleman can make his point when he makes his speech.

The deficiency becomes particularly obvious in connection with clause 2, which deals with the dissemination of terrorist publications. Those who drafted the Lords amendments perhaps did not intend them to have that narrowing effect, but they unquestionably do have precisely that effect. I regard that as a serious problem because I do not believe that any form of indirect encouragement or other inducement to terrorism should be acceptable. It is also a problem because the Council of Europe offence on which ours is modelled was clear on precisely that point. The offence was intended to capture "public provocation", as well as other forms of encouragement or inducement to terrorism. The European convention on the prevention of terrorism includes provocation, so we should include provocation, too. Like glorifying terrorism, it is possible to provoke it without describing or referring to it.

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say during Prime Minister's Question Time and I am not wholly persuaded by the argument that listening cannot encompass reading. I go to listen to the word of God in church, but that is sometimes communicated in written as well as oral form. If that is the extent of the Home Secretary's anxiety and the Prime Minister's, I am sure that they will agree that it is readily curable. If the Home Secretary gives the House an assurance that he would be happy with their lordships' formula if "listener" were replaced by some other word that emphasises that the statement can be heard or read, we shall be able to bring these proceedings to a close very quickly.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the amendment for which he wishes to vote is entirely deficient in an important way. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why, in debates in the Chamber, can a perfectly clear statement sometimes immediately be distorted by the recipient into something that the plain word "misrepresentation" could not possibly cover?

That is not a point of order but a matter for debate.

I am afraid that I was confused by the remark by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that listening is the same as reading. Most children, before they reach key stage 2, understand the difference between listening and reading, so I would expect him to acknowledge it. Indeed, I believe that he did so, because he went on to say that the wording for which he wants to vote should be changed, and he invited me to do so. That is the simple point that I was making, but it was only the first of three points of difference that need to be addressed.

Will the Home Secretary clarify something that is viewed as very important outside the House? The vast majority of the public were doubtless horrified by the placards on display two weeks ago after the Danish cartoon affair. If the amendments supported by the Opposition do not cover that situation, does not that show the weakness of their argument and the weakness of the proposal for which they will vote?

My hon. Friend is right. I will not comment specifically on the placards used in that demonstration, because the matter is being considered by the police and prosecution authorities, and it is entirely possible that they were illegal under existing legislation. However, placards with wording that is not illegal under existing legislation, but which would be illegal under the proposals, may have been used. Irrespective of that important distinction, the Lords amendment excludes anything visual such as a placard or, rather more significantly, websites. Some websites disseminate the glorification of terrorism, but they are excluded from the Lords amendment.

I confess that, despite my surname, I know rather less about the French language than the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, I know a little about the law of publication. We are addressing the publication—the making known to third parties—of statements that the right hon. Gentleman wants to outlaw. However, as we are on the subject of glorification, and given the muddle that we seem to be getting into, what is the difference between intentional glorification in the sense for which the Home Secretary is arguing and intentional incitement, which is already included in criminal law?

The indirect aspect is important. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose legal qualifications and understanding of the matter I respect, does not agree, but we believe that in the overall context of the Bill it is important to outlaw the glorification of terrorism where there is intent, as we have discussed. The Opposition think that it is not important to talk about glorification—they think that we should talk about indirect encouragement instead. We do not agree.

Will the Home Secretary deal with two related matters and thus greatly assist me and, I am sure, other Members? If, as he rightly said, glorification is simply an example of offences covered by clause 1, and if it is a particularly obvious example, why is it necessary to include it in the Bill? While we are on the subject, why cannot someone incite by holding a placard?

I know that I should not expect the support of my hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby, whatever I say. However, glorification is important in the Government's view because of the clear understanding by the public, the courts and juries both of the word itself and of what is happening. The Opposition do not agree, but we think that it is very important. In addition, our amendments deal directly with placards and such matters. The Lords amendment, however, excludes them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Home Secretary is experiencing difficulties because of what he considers omissions in the Lords amendment, can you help him by accepting a manuscript amendment if he submits one?

I cannot do so at this stage, because a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment has already been moved.

You could not have made the position clearer, Mr. Speaker. That exchange was extremely helpful, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield admitted that the Lords amendment was deficient. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I do not wish to be controversial or misleading, so I shall rephrase my remarks. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his contribution that it would be better if the Lords amendment were amended in certain respects, as Hansard will show. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked if that could be done by a manuscript amendment, which you have made clear, Mr. Speaker, could not be accepted at this stage. That leads me to conclude—in my own words, not those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—that the Lords amendment is deficient.

I have often participated in Committee, where it is possible to hold lengthy debate on minute areas of textual drafting. I am always prepared to acknowledge that text can be improved or changed. Sometimes that does not make any difference, but sometimes it does, and the difference can provide reassurance. That is why I told the Home Secretary that if that is an obstacle for the Government—it appeared to cause the Prime Minister enormous anxiety at Prime Minister's Question Time—it is readily curable. If he would like to provide the House with an assurance that the Government would accept the Bill with a cure for that one word, I am sure that we can resolve the debate very quickly. That is as consensual an approach as it is possible to take. I wish that the Home Secretary would take it in good part and respond sensibly, rather than engage in more polemic.

I do not think that I have engaged in polemic. It is always entertaining to see qualified lawyers—I certainly am not one—counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin in these debates, but I do not accept that I have engaged in polemic. Indeed, quite the opposite.

I have given the first of three reasons why the Lords amendments should be rejected. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that people who seek to recruit terrorists do so not just by directly encouraging terrorism or by provoking people to commit violent acts but by glorifying terrorism and terrorists. They may emphasise that terrorists are heroes whose actions should be copied; that terrorists go straight to paradise when they die; that terrorists undertake glorious acts that deserve to be emulated; or that terrorists are simply better humans than those of us who are not terrorists. The single word that best captures that is "glorification". It is the word that, we all recognise, covers such forms of indirect encouragement. It does not, as I have explained, cover all forms of indirect encouragement, but it does cover those forms. It is that clarity of meaning that makes the word "glorification" so important. Not only do our electorate know what it means, and not only was it defined with total clarity for the courts, but those who seek to recruit terrorists know what it means. If the legislation outlaws the glorification of terrorism, preachers and proselytisers for terrorism and the organisations with which they work will know that if they glorify terrorism they may fall within the parameters of the offence. If it is not included, they know that they can glorify with impunity. The alternative expression "indirect encouragement" does not send a strong or clear message. The only message that it sends is that glorification is acceptable.

Can the Home Secretary provide one instance in which the word "glorification" has been defined in the courts as he suggested? There is no such description in any court judgment. As for his general assertion that the proposal will provide clarity, I acknowledge that the Lords amendments may well contain minor defects. None the less, the Home Secretary must surely admit that the Government's proposals are vague and uncertain, and have been condemned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I am glad that a third hon. Member speaking from the Conservative Benches acknowledges that the amendments from the Lords are unclear in certain respects. That helps the debate.

The Home Secretary used a strange word just before the previous intervention, when he said that people may be found guilty of glorification. How can the word "may" be expressed so that people clearly understand that they could glorify something and they might not be committing an offence? What is the distinction?

First, the offence depends on the context within which glorification takes place. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. Secondly, it will be for the court in any given circumstance to judge whether any offence has been committed. That is not a judgment that I can make.

Will the Home Secretary accept a definition of "glorify" as "represent as admirable, especially if that is unjustified"? That definition is from the Oxford dictionary.

I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that the words from the Oxford dictionary are a reasonable way of looking at the word "glorification", but my argument is that "glorification" is a simple and clearly understood word that is very powerful in its own right.

The Home Secretary spoke of sending a clear signal, as did the Prime Minister earlier. Putting aside the concerns that the law is more about indicating what the Government are thinking than about dealing with a real gap in our criminal law, does it not come ill from the Government to talk about sending clear signals, when the immediate response to the disgraceful protests outside the Danish embassy was not to condemn the protesters but to condemn the newspapers that published the cartoons?

That point is utterly ridiculous and completely wrong. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement that I made following the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). On the Monday after those events, I came to the House as early as I could to make clear the Government position and I dealt with that explicitly.

I am struggling to think of concrete examples of behaviour that would be caught by the Bill. If someone were to wear a T-shirt, for example, with a picture of Osama bin Laden and underneath the words, "Osama needs you", would that fall within the ambit of the Bill?

It would depend on the intention. Let us take a simple sentence such as, "We glorify the memory of Mohammed Siddique Khan", one of the 7 July bombers. I emphasise again, in response to the comments that have been made, that it would depend on the context, but that is the type of statement that would be covered by the Bill, but would not be covered by general incitement legislation of another type.

Thirdly, on the Lords amendment, I make a technical point about the drafting of the legislation. As it passed through this House, the offence in clause 1 included a provision that referred to "glorification" explicitly. The only conclusion to be drawn from the removal of the word is that it will be presumed that the offence was not intended to cover glorification. This view could well be taken by the courts, it would probably be taken by our constituents and, more seriously, it could well be taken by the recruiters of terrorists. This would undermine both the legal effectiveness of the offence and its effectiveness as a deterrent, in a climate where we need to understand that individuals and organisations that promote and glorify terrorism are looking at our decisions and deciding how best to conduct themselves.

Taken together, the three major reasons that I have outlined mean that we must not agree to the Lords amendments, but should insert the alternative amendments that I propose in lieu of them. We should, particularly in view of the flaws in the Lords amendments that have been acknowledged from the Opposition Benches, even now proceed on the basis of consensus. Indeed, in the spirit of consensus, we have agreed that the offence should be committed only if the requisite mens rea tests are satisfied. Those mental tests are intent and subjective recklessness—that is, the offence will be committed only if someone encourages terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, including through the glorification of terrorism, intending to encourage it or knowingly taking an unreasonable risk that they will encourage it. In this context, I cannot see why there should be objection to the inclusion of a provision relating to the glorification of terrorism. I hope the House will agree to reject the Lords amendments and accept those that I proposed.

I am happy to speak in French to the Minister if he would prefer me to do so, but that is prohibited by the rules of the House, so I shall refrain from it.

The Home Secretary comes to the House to make a case for the restoration of the concept of glorification. I think he knows and has acknowledged in the course of interventions that it is a concept hitherto unknown to our law and is undefined. The Home Secretary glossed over the history of the matter. The original announcement, which came from the Prime Minister as much as from anybody else, was that we would have a separate offence of glorification, condoning and exaltation of terrorism. That was the expression.

What happened, although the Home Secretary seems to be unwilling to admit it in the House this afternoon, is that that idea came in for a massive amount of criticism, to the point where it was entirely rubbished and ridiculed. It was an unworkable proposal. It envisaged putting up a list which, in a convoluted way, meant that there was a 20-year cut-off period for criticisms, to try and get round the problems that it might pose in respect of the African National Congress. It was a dog's breakfast of a proposal and the Government and the Home Secretary wisely abandoned it.

Having abandoned the proposal, the next problem was to cope with the occupant of No. 10 Downing street, who once he has come out with one of his populist pronouncements, which he thinks has some resonance with the press, decides that the word still has to feature. That seems to be the only reason why glorification was put into clause 1. I say to the Home Secretary that it could be removed in its entirety and the Bill, with the concept of indirect encouragement, would still be perfectly workable. In some cases, glorification might be an example of indirect encouragement, but in other cases it might not. There is no rhyme or reason why it should be there.

In his political knockabout, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the word "glorification" was used in the Labour party manifesto at the general election in May? The suggestion that it was used only after the events of 7 July by the Prime Minister in his statement in August is completely wrong. It was clearly set out in the election manifesto before the 7/7 bombings and is a word that we have thought important, for the reasons that I have given, over a considerable time.

The Home Secretary helpfully gave us a history of the origin of the word, which lies not in legal text, but in a pronouncement from an international organisation. It is none the worse for that, but translating pious aspirations into sensible law is the job of the House. It is not the job of the House to take every such pious aspiration and repeat it verbatim. The decision to repeat it verbatim was the Prime Minister's when he concluded that there was political mileage in doing so. He kept it up even after I think the Home Secretary pointed out to him that the original idea was entirely unworkable. [Interruption.] In that case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and explain why the original idea of a separate offence was dropped.

The answer is straightforward. We consulted on the proposal and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there were a number of people who thought that it was not correctly constructed. We debated in the House how to deal with it. We made a set of amendments, in the spirit of compromise that I tried to set out. However, I repeat that the word "glorification" was set out in the Labour party manifesto. It is not an invented word in the populist political way that the hon. Gentleman describes.

The Home Secretary may correct me if I have got it wrong, but I do not think that a separate offence of glorification ever featured in the Bill as published. It featured in the draft Bill. He said that amendments were then made, as though that took place in the Chamber. It did not. There were no such amendments. The Government dropped the concept because it was unworkable. Yet even last night, the Prime Minister's propaganda department was putting out to the press—that is the way it was reproduced on the news this morning—that what was at stake in the House today was an offence of glorification. That is how it was announced on the 8 o'clock news on Radio 4. It is fascinating to see the No. 10 press unit peddle utterly misleading information, which is accepted verbatim despite its being at complete variance with the facts. The debate involves both a principle and a technical issue, but it has been hijacked by the Prime Minister for narrow party political purposes.

On the rhyme or reason argument, will the hon. Gentleman address the question of placards, which the Home Secretary has not addressed? It has been stated that without the Bill people cannot be prosecuted for displaying such placards. Why have prosecutions not taken place under the existing incitement legislation?

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Clear criminal offences have been committed under the existing law, and I can see no difficultly in bringing prosecutions. It adds to my concern when I hear the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Home Secretary repeatedly insisting that there is a great difficulty, because neither I nor any lawyer of my acquaintance can perceive it.

Will my hon. Friend return to his statement that we do not need the word "glorification" because the legislation covers the indirect encouragement of terrorism? Can he think of a single example in which a person who could be prosecuted for glorification could not be prosecuted for indirect encouragement in a case that would be likely to be won?

My right hon. Friend brings me on to my next point, which is that indirect encouragement is all that is required to lay the foundations of the offence. However, glorification and indirect encouragement are not identical, and the mischief of using the term "glorification" is that it undoubtedly extends further.

In April, the Taoiseach will lead the Irish nation in the celebration and praise of the Easter rising, and I defy the Home Secretary to persuade me or anybody else that that is not glorification within the scope of the law—incidentally, I emphasise that the Taoiseach has good reason to lead such a celebration. That topic is controversial in Ireland: some people see the Easter rising as a historical event that is worthy of commemoration because it was part of a period of national self-assertion, while others see it as a continuing call to arms—although a ceasefire has been declared in Northern Ireland, some individuals do not respect it.

If the Taoiseach were to visit this country after that celebration, he would be in serious difficulty under the Bill as drafted—the Government want the Bill as it is drafted. He would have to accept that the celebration was not without controversy, because some people in Ireland say that it might encourage terrorism. Even under the subjective recklessness test, he would not be free of the possibility that his decision would be impugned. If the law were applied impartially, he would have to be jolly careful, because he is not subject to sovereign immunity when he visits this country, and I think that he would be liable to arrest and prosecution following that celebration.

It is a classic example of the crassness of the Government's approach that they should end up with such a ludicrous state of affairs. The only protection that the Taoiseach or anybody else has is that the Government have smiled sweetly and said, "You need not worry, because the exercise of discretion in these matters will mean that no prosecution will actually be brought." That approach is simply ridiculous, when this House can craft legislation that makes sure that such nonsense does not happen and meets the Home Secretary's needs.

The placards outside the Danish embassy have been mentioned several times. Aside from the sensitivities around removing them at the time, have the police said that arrests were not made because there was not an adequate law under which to make them?

If the police were to say that, they would be wrong—it is as simple as that. If the people involved can be identified, there is no reason why they cannot be charged with an offence. It would not even be a question of indirect encouragement, because the incident involved the most direct incitement to violence and murder that one can possibly imagine.

Abu Hamza was prosecuted under laws dating back to 1861. I know that the world was supposed to have started when new Labour entered government, but perfectly reasonable laws were on the statute book before then.

I was outside the post office in Dublin when Ireland was declared a Republic—I emphasise that that was in 1949 rather than in 1916. Is the hon. Gentleman really comparing the fight for Irish independence against British colonial rule and the American war of independence with modern terrorism such as 7 July? If so, is he not in danger of minimising the horrors that occurred in our country, where more than 50 people were massacred and many others were seriously injured and must live with those injuries for the rest of their lives? How can he compare that event with what happened in Ireland or what is now the United States?

The hon. Gentleman has made my point: I would not seek to equate one event with the other, but the legislation makes no such distinction.

The definition of terrorism is so wide that it includes the activities of Robin Hood in the 13th century. Helpfully, the Home Secretary has said that he will ask Lord Carlile to review the matter and try to come up with a definition of international terrorism that goes some way to meeting those anxieties, but it is a difficult task—it will take a legal genius to come up with a formula, and I hope that Lord Carlile or someone else can do it. In the meantime, however, we are saddled with a definition of terrorism that covers the activities of the ANC, the IRA and French resistance fighters during the second world war.

EOKA.

Indeed, the definition also covers EOKA, Wat Tyler, Jack Cade and John Ball, so it is pretty wide. In those circumstances, we should restrict the scope of offences and ensure that they are neatly targeted, which is what the House of Lords has attempted to do.

The hon. Gentleman has obviously allowed his mind to roam around possible prosecutions under the Bill as drafted. Returning closer to home, the former hon. Member for Richmond lost her position on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench because she sympathised with the aspirations of suicide bombers. Would she have been liable to prosecution under the Bill?

On the strict textual interpretation of the Bill as the Home Secretary wants it, she is at risk, as indeed is the Prime Minister's wife. That illustrates how ludicrous the Government's approach is.

As a non-lawyer layman, I am always nervous about entering into a debate about definition that seems to be largely conducted by lawyers. It seems to me that given the scale of the problems that we face, it would be better to move towards a definition which provides a greater disincentive to anybody to do or say anything that might be construed as pro-terrorism rather than be a prisoner of the past on other issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that layman's perspective?

The concept of indirect encouragement is probably sufficient in itself, but it was with a view to trying to encapsulate the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the Lords drafted amendment No. 5. Their intention was to be not oppositional, but conciliatory, to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard record of the debate in the Lords, he will see that some perfectly respectable people in the other place felt that even this amendment went too far and preferred to keep, without further ado, the straight definition of "indirect encouragement". The amendment was intended to encapsulate the issue and to be helpful.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the narrowness of the definition in the Lords amendment means that it would not be seen as a disincentive to a whole range of potential offences, and is therefore not conducive to realising the whole objective behind the Bill?