I have today published the revised version of the Government’s strategy for countering international terrorism. Protecting the safety of everybody in Britain is the primary duty, and the abiding obligation, of Government. Recent events in Northern Ireland were a chilling reminder that the threat of terrorism has not left our shores, and they demonstrated the need to continue to adapt our approach so that we can deal with that threat wherever it emerges.

As we set out in our Contest strategy today, the greatest security threat that we face comes from al-Qaeda and related groups and individuals. Our aim is to reduce the risk to the UK and our interests overseas from international terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. We know that the threat is severe and that an attack is highly likely and could happen without warning at any time. We know that this new form of terrorism is different in scale and nature from the terrorist threats that we have had to deal with in recent decades. This new form of terrorism is rooted in conflicts overseas and the fragility of some states and grounded in an extremist ideology that uses violence to further its ends. It exploits the opportunities created by modern technologies and seeks to radicalise young people into violent extremism.

The threat now comes from the al-Qaeda leadership and its immediate associates, located mainly on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, as well as from its affiliates and from others, including rogue individuals, who espouse similar views. As hon. Members throughout the House will know, not least my predecessors as Home Secretary, on whose important work this strategy builds, those groups have planned a succession of attacks against the UK with the aim of causing mass casualties.

Thanks to the hard work and dedication of thousands of people, to whom I pay tribute, we have had considerable success in stopping terrorists in their tracks and bringing those responsible to justice. We have disrupted more than a dozen attempted terrorist plots in the UK and, since 2001, almost 200 people have been convicted of terrorist-related offences.

However, the threat remains and is always evolving. The strategy takes that into account, draws on what we have learned about how to counter it, and reflects the increased resources that we have rightly made available to keep Britain safe. In recent years, the number of police dedicated to counter-terrorism work has grown from 1,700 to 3,000. The Security Service has doubled in size.

We have trained tens of thousands of people throughout the country to prepare for and protect against a terrorist attack, and we are working with communities to prevent the spread of violent extremism. We currently spend £2.5 billion on countering terrorism. By 2011, that will rise to £3.5 billion—the majority will be spent on the main focus of work: pursuing terrorists wherever they are and stopping their attacks.

The Contest strategy remains centred on four key areas—Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare. We have updated each of them. Pursue will make use of the new resources and new legislation available to the intelligence agencies and police to investigate and disrupt terrorist networks here and overseas, and to prosecute those responsible.

Prevent will reach more people than ever, as we step up our efforts to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism. That reflects our better understanding of the causes of radicalisation and includes new programmes and new partnerships with communities here and overseas.

Protect aims to strengthen our defences against an attack through a strong border, improved resilience in our critical national infrastructure and greater protection for the crowded places where we all live, work, shop and play.

Prepare will limit the impact of any attacks that occur, with tens of thousands of emergency services workers, security guards, store managers and others trained and equipped to deal with an incident. Every region of the country now has plans to deal with an attack, improve our ability to recover and ensure a return to normal as soon as possible.

There is also dedicated cross-Government work on the specific threat posed by terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and explosives.

The vital work to counter terrorism cannot be done by central Government, the police and agencies working alone. That is why the revised strategy is based on work right across central and devolved Government and local government, and with our international partners and local communities.

In addressing both the immediate threats and their longer-term causes—and how we will deliver action locally, nationally and internationally—our aim has been to publish as full and open an account of our work as possible. The strategy also draws close links with other Government policies that are essential to its delivery, including conflict reduction, our international aid programme, counter-proliferation, our work in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and our support to communities here, building cohesion, empowerment and equality in this country. The strategy is also closely co-ordinated with the national security strategy, which was published for the first time last year.

The challenge that all of us in the House face is striking the right balance between measures to protect security and the right to life, and the impact on the other rights that we hold dear.

Contest is based on clear and unambiguous principles. My approach to protecting Britain’s security in the face of the terrorist threat will always be underpinned by our core shared values, including the protection of human rights, the rule of law, and democratic and accountable government.

The Government have sought that balance at all times, but we remain uncompromising on several issues. We oppose the use of torture in all its forms. We have always condemned the practice of extraordinary rendition, and will continue to do so.

The strategy is comprehensive and wide ranging. In publishing it, our primary aim is to reassure the British public that we are doing all in our power to protect this country through our relentless pursuit of terrorists and our determination to prevent violent extremism.

I commend the statement to the House.

May I thank the Home Secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement? Once again, however, may I express my annoyance on behalf of the House at the fact that the documents, which are published today, were released and distributed through the media long before they were released to MPs? That is completely unacceptable and goes against numerous rulings by you, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary should be ashamed of herself.

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the police and all the security services, both overseas and at home, for their work in protecting us against the terrorist threat, but we should do more than recognise that hard work—we should also recognise their personal courage in looking after us. We all share the same goal in respect of the issues we are discussing today. We want to do everything we can to combat terror, and we will be constructive critics of what the Government do as a result.

Furthermore, we face new kinds of threat. The events in Mumbai in November were truly shocking. Innocent people were gunned down in their hotel rooms or shot at random on a busy railway station. Armed men roaming the streets of cities looking for people to shoot indiscriminately is a new experience in the battle against terror. That is why we back the Government’s aim of broadening knowledge of the terrorist threat to thousands of people who work in public places.

However, the Government have to do the job properly. It is depressing to discover that the programme described in last weekend’s newspapers by the Prime Minister does not appear to be what we were promised. He described the programme as follows:

“Tens of thousands of men and women…from security guards to store managers…have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business”.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the training programme described by the Prime Minister amounts to no more than a voluntary three-hour seminar, and that includes the coffee break? I do not see how we can train people properly to deal with terrorism in less than half the time allocated to a cycling proficiency course.

Will the Home Secretary tell us how widely the training has been spread? When we contacted the management of two major shopping centres this morning, we were told that all that they knew about the plans was from newspaper reports this week. Why?

When it comes to new kinds of threat, the Home Secretary is right to highlight the need to be aware of the danger of an attack with chemical, biological or radiological weapons, but will she tell the House why police in London will not all have access to protective equipment ahead of the G20 summit?

The other big caveat is how we deal with the groups that foster both hatred and violence in our society and the extremism that underpins many aspects of the threat that we face. The meeting held in a school in London last week at which one of the most controversial of all the so-called preachers of hate, Omar Bakri, was able to preach over a phone line to a group of followers and call for attacks on British soldiers and civilians was a disgrace. Why was that allowed to happen?

We have to deal with extremism in all its guises. People have the right to campaign for radical change in our society. We should not seek to ban them from doing so, but the state has the right to protect its people and its institutions, and the principles of a democratic society. We should not be providing support to those who wish to undermine that society, so will the Home Secretary now stop funding groups that propagate extremism, and instead concentrate on funding projects that break down the community divide?

We will support the Government when they do the right thing to combat terrorism. There is much in the document that we welcome, but the Government’s strategy is not perfect and we will continue to push for change where we believe that it is flawed. We will do so out of a desire that I believe is shared right across this House: to do everything we can to keep the terrorist threat at bay.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Contest strategy has been available to hon. Members in the Vote Office since 10 o’clock this morning.

The media had it last night.

No, the media did not have it last night. It was available to hon. Members at 10 o’clock this morning and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I personally sent him a copy today as well.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to those involved in helping to keep this country safe. I welcome that tribute. I accept his point that we need to learn from terrible events such as those in Mumbai and Lahore—and we will—and to feed that into our ongoing work to protect from and to prepare for terrorist attacks.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the work we are taking forward through Project Argus. I am sorry that he was so dismissive of a wide-ranging programme that is placed on top of the work of police officers, police community support officers, the security and intelligence agencies and others who work to keep us safe, and that aims to provide training and preparation and to protect us where we shop, where we work and where we live. About 700 programmes have been implemented under Project Argus and more than 30,000 people have received training—and plans are in place for even more people to receive it. On top of that, separate training programmes for security guards are being conducted throughout the country to help ensure that they are vigilant. I hope that hon. Members will welcome and support that work in their local communities.

The hon. Gentleman welcomes our focus on the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat. We are ensuring, once again, that all police officers receive basic information training in CBRN threats, with 8,000 police officers receiving specific training, and they all have access to protective equipment.

The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises, as do we, the challenge to counteract violent extremism and those who want to support terrorism. In providing funding for groups and other elements of the work, we have ensured that we can measure the outcomes of what those groups do. We commissioned a review from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission, which has already been published. I agree that our work to counter violent extremism and to support shared values needs to go even further, which is why we are clear in this document about the values that we share—the same values, incidentally, that are under attack by terrorists— and we will as a Government and more widely across the community challenge those who do not share those values. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that our emphasis on working—not just in communities, but more widely in prisons, schools, universities and internationally—to prevent people from turning to violent extremism is an important part of, and the correct long-term approach to, what I hope is our joint work to help keep this country safer.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her commitment to continue to engage with communities. As events in Luton showed, it is extremely important to continue that process of engagement. She mentioned Mumbai, but security in major hotels and tourist places in such cities does not bear comparison with what is happening in London. Although I of course welcome everything the Government have done in training staff, it is vital that we continue to work with the private sector to ensure that it puts in place the necessary security arrangements in our major hotels and major tourist destinations, which will be targeted by terrorists, and we must prepare for that.

I think my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention, as I did, to the need to learn from events such as those in Mumbai. I am glad that he welcomes the fact that, through the security advisers we fund, we have ensured that hotel operators are trained. In addition, of course, we provide advice, and we are developing the way in which we provide it—for example, ensuring that buildings are designed and built to be as safe as possible from potential terrorist attack. We will continue to do that and build on that work. I am sure my right hon. Friend shares my view that terrorists want us to garner obvious, difficult and cumbersome forms of security that prevent us from going about our daily lives. Our task is to make sure that everybody is able to live their daily lives as freely, but as securely, as possible.

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of the statement, although I should have liked more opportunity to look at the substantial purple document that accompanies it. Perhaps on the next occasion the Home Secretary could arrange to inform Members that it is available, as that certainly was not obvious to me.

Terrorism remains a grave threat to our society—on that, we are agreed. I too pay tribute to the work of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and, indeed, the police forces involved in counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism, who are so involved in this fight. We have faced it before in the form of republican Irish terrorism and have survived it, and I have no doubt that we shall do so again. Does the Home Secretary agree, however, that although the threat is severe, our response must always be measured and proportionate? We must never become what we are fighting, for therein lies a loss of the moral high ground and the esteem of the very people whom we need to provide intelligence and witnesses.

There is much to welcome in this document, but what further ongoing training, and indeed communication with those involved in counter-intelligence, will these 60,000 people have? What powers will they have, and what does she expect of them? Does she recognise that many innocent people going about their lawful business, from train-spotters to tourists and, in the latest incident, night fishermen, have been arrested by over-zealous police officers? What will she do to prevent that from happening again?

Our concern about the strategy is that it continues to sacrifice hard-won liberties in the name of security, and to trespass at the edge of what is acceptable to many British people. Ministers have repeatedly returned with proposals for longer periods of detention without charge, as if the whole fight against terrorism could be reduced to a number: 90 days, 42 days and, still, 28 days—more than double the next longest period in an English-speaking country.

Would it not be better if the Home Secretary made more hasty progress with the introduction of intercept evidence in courts? What progress is she making with that? Given the substantial success of criminal convictions for terrorist offences—at 92 per cent., the figure is far higher than those for other serious crimes, which is cause for real congratulation of the Home Secretary—will she now review the need for some of the more extreme measures that she introduced in relation to the very long period of detention without charge? Will she come back to the House with a reform of the regime for control orders?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to those involved in countering terrorism and keeping us safe. I agree that our response should be measured and proportionate, but I disagree with his assessment that it is not. I have made it completely clear in the strategy that our approach to countering terrorism must be grounded in basic human rights: that is at the heart of our approach.

The hon. Gentleman described the training that we provide through Project Argus, and other training, as being about giving powers to those involved, but it is not about giving them specific powers. It is about, for example, enabling security guards to be vigilant and aware of what is happening outside, perhaps outside the night club that they are guarding, and training people in shopping centres to be aware of what would happen in the event of a terrorist attack. Those people must learn how to lead others to safety, and where the safe places are. Pretty practical and, I think, sensible guidance and advice will be given to people who can play a role—although it will not be their primary role—in keeping others safe.

The hon. Gentleman returned once again—which I did not, in my statement—to detention periods, and to the fallacy that detention periods in this country are somehow out of step with those in other countries. We have presented our arguments time after time. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the arguments that we have presented about European countries—never mind other countries—where people are detained for longer periods, effectively pre-charge, than is the case in this country, and I remind him that in this country any detention for longer than 24 hours is subject to judicial oversight and review.

The hon. Gentleman asks about our progress with intercept evidence. As we have made clear, we are working through the proposition made in the Chilcot review that it is possible to design a legal system in which we could use intercept evidence, while fulfilling the Privy Council review’s nine tests. As we spelt out in a recent written ministerial statement, we are now, having reviewed and designed a system, trying to test it with real cases.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is important that these reviews are ongoing, as terrorist movements across the world and in this country do not stand still in trying to ensure that on one occasion—it only takes one occasion—they get through, kill people and cause the destruction of life and property. For those who are maimed, life will never be the same again.

I welcome the statement but I would like my right hon. Friend to go back to her colleagues in Government on one part of it. In the past 10 years, 200 of our fellow citizens have been killed abroad in terrorist attacks, and 150 have been maimed for life, yet we still do not have a comprehensive compensation scheme for British citizens abroad. These are not combatants or volunteers; they are simply men, women and children who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and because it was not in the United Kingdom they are treated differently. That is indefensible. We are dealing with worldwide terrorism. Every British citizen is entitled to be treated the same and to be protected. Where something goes wrong, they and their families are entitled to be looked after by this country. I ask her to take that back to her colleagues and to give a clear indication, possibly as early as the Budget, about what we should do about it.

My right hon. Friend is right to be impassioned about the safety of people both in this country and overseas. A specific part of the strategy is to protect our interests here and overseas, but I understand that he is making a specific point about compensation. We already provide considerable assistance, but I will reflect on his points about a compensation system for those harmed in terrorist attacks overseas, and discuss them with colleagues.

Is there any particular reason why the Pursue strand in the document is being moved up ahead of the Prevent strand, which is normally the first named? Has the right hon. Lady made any progress in her dealings with university staff in reminding them that, while the preservation of academic freedom is absolutely vital, they also have duties as citizens of this country to report to the appropriate authorities any incipient criminal activities that they detect on campus?

I think that the order has always been Pursue and then Prevent. Of course the short-term task is to pursue those who are plotting terrorist attacks and to bring them to justice, and the long-term aim is to prevent people from turning to terrorism or violent extremism in the first place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not read too much into the placing of those elements in the list. It is a wide-ranging and comprehensive strategy that requires all four Ps to be successful.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about higher education institutions. We have made considerable progress, not least through the work of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, in providing more guidance on what happens in higher education institutions. It is now recognised that while academic freedom and the right of discussion is absolutely fundamentally part of university life, so is the protection of young people from potential radicalisation, which may lead them to tragic consequences, and the right of everyone to have freedom to live on university campuses without being subject to some of the radicalising influences and violent extremism that there is a risk of being perpetrated in some of our higher education institutions.

I thank my right hon. Friend and all those who have worked with her on updating the Contest strategy, which we first put together in 2003. While it is understandable that she will be concentrating on the immediate physical risk to life and limb, demonstrated so tragically on 7 July 2005, and the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat that exists, will she consider adding a further letter to CBRN—E for electronic or cyber attack?

There is a brief mention of it in the updated document, but as we saw from Estonia and can see what is happening across the world, there is a real danger that terrorists could launch such an attack in a devastating fashion that would not only undermine our already fragile economy, but put people at substantial risk.

My right hon. Friend makes those comments from a position of considerable experience in terms of his contribution to the whole issue of how we counter the terrorist threat. He is right that cyber-security generally cuts across almost all the challenges highlighted last year in the national security strategy, including not only terrorism but matters such as organised crime and business crime. That is why a piece of work currently being undertaken by the Cabinet Office is extremely important; it is leading a cross-departmental project on cyber-security, and I hope my right hon. Friend is reassured to know that that work is going on in Government. He will also know, not least because he and I were in Washington at the same time, just over a week ago, that the way in which we can work with our international partners is also very important. During that trip, I was able to meet Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security, who is currently reviewing the role that that Department should play in cyber-security in the US, and we agreed to share experience, to work together, to tackle many of the problems posed in the area of cyber-security and to ensure we can be safe in the virtual world in the same way as we are in the real world.

The Home Secretary will be aware that one of the so-called preachers of hate is currently in a high-security prison awaiting deportation as a danger to the state. When he was on Special Immigration Appeals Commission bail, he was forbidden to use the internet, yet as we speak, he is broadcasting on the internet his litany of hate, trying to suborn young minds across the country and the world. That is happening from inside a high-security prison. How can that happen?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice was present in the Chamber until recently. I am sure he will be concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will take that up with my right hon. Friend.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I have an interest in these matters, as declared in the register. First, may I congratulate the Home Secretary on what I consider the most important element of this strategy: its unparalleled openness? Does she agree that if we are truly to be able to face, respond to and—God forbid that we ever have the need—recover from a terrorist attack, the resilience that is needed will ultimately lie not in the agencies of the state, but in the resolve, spirit and understanding, and support for our aims, of the ordinary people of this country? Therefore, may I commend her training programmes, and ask whether she agrees that the litmus test of this strategy is how far it will embed that resilience not just in the political leadership here or the formal security agencies of the British state, but in the ordinary people of Britain, because it is ultimately through them and in the communities that we will defeat the terrorists?

I thank my right hon. Friend for those words, and also for his extremely important work in the Home Office, not least in setting up and reorganising the structure of government to ensure that, in the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, we have a strong strategic lead for taking this work forward across government, and his work in highlighting the evolving nature of the threat and the requirement for us to evolve how we dealt with it. I agree with him that while we depend on those in the police, the security and intelligence agencies and the armed forces to tackle terrorism, it is not enough to expect that they will enable us to mitigate that threat. Each of us has a role, and it is in recognition of that that we have—unprecedentedly, I think—made all these 170-plus pages unclassified and available to the public. It is why we have also ensured that we have a more digestible version that the public can read too. He rightly says that it is when everybody understands not that there is a lot to fear, but that there is a lot to be gained by being vigilant and by having a role to play in helping to counter terror, that we will truly be safer and more confident in this country about our security.

May I say to the Home Secretary that a tragic reminder of the less than competent implementation of the strategy is the fact that she was unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)?

To come back to the strategic issue, one of the most fundamental aspects of Contest is the Prevent strand—preventing a large number of young Muslims from becoming radicalised. Her own heads of MI5 successively have told us that there has been a massive 25 per cent. year-on-year increase in the number of those young Muslims. That demonstrates a failure of the Prevent strand, and it is made worse by the fact that her Government attempt, time and again, to implement excessively authoritarian measures such as 42 days, 90 days and so on. What is she going to do to make this strand work?

I have to say that I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s comment that there has been a 25 per cent. year-on-year increase. In fact, it is this Government who, over the past few years, have put a particular focus on the action, resources and partnerships that we have built up in order to prevent violent extremism not just in the communities, but more widely. He does not choose to listen, so I shall end my reply there.

Many of us remember the Omagh bombing and some of us in this place remember Airey Neave. Surely the whole House must agree with my right hon. Friend that there are major differences between the past challenge of the Provisional IRA and the situation we face now. Not only is it international—that makes a crucial difference—but we know the scale of the threat following the attacks on the twin towers and the London underground transport system. Does she agree that one of the important things to recognise in her whole approach is the distinction between the short term, when we have to both disrupt these groups, many of which follow the leadership of al-Qaeda, and convict the people who are found guilty, and the medium to long term, when we have to win the hearts and minds for a society where we have freedom and justice for all?

My right hon. Friend is exactly right; that is the reason why all four Ps that I have outlined today are fundamentally important and why, in the short term, we do need to take action to disrupt terrorist plots and to bring terrorists to justice. It is also why we have focused considerable effort and funding on the second P—Prevent—and why the way in which we prevent people from becoming violent extremists and from supporting terrorism, both in this country and abroad, will be the defining factor in whether we can help to reduce the risk in the longer term.

In the Home Secretary’s Prevent strategy, on page 84 of the document, she rightly says:

“Building community cohesion is about creating strong and positive relationships between people of different backgrounds, including those...from different faith communities.”

Given that statement, does she recognise the potential for inconsistency in allowing schools, through religious discrimination, to segregate communities further, meaning that white-only schools can stay white-only by refusing admission to Muslims and Asian schools can remain Asian-only by excluding applications from non-Muslims? Will she pause to reconsider the policy of allowing that sort of segregation to get worse?

I have had experience in my previous jobs of the admissions criteria for schools, and I absolutely do not recognise the ability of schools to operate the sorts of admission criteria that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but can she assure me that it will prevent a repetition of the situation where Daud Abdullah, the deputy president of the Muslim Council of Britain, was able to advise Ministers on social cohesion while he was, as he remains, a promoter of violent jihad?

Certainly, we condemn not only the comments, but the statements supported by Daud Abdullah. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is in ongoing dialogue with the MCB about his role and the response to those particular circumstances.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but while her responsibilities are inevitably focused primarily on her own Department, may I commend the cross-governmental approach that the document adopts? Does she share my concern that the pages on Pakistan and Afghanistan suggest that it is hardly possible to say that the Prevent strategy is working in those countries? In fact, what we have done in Afghanistan seems to have fed the forces of radicalisation rather than defeated them. What discussions is she having with her counterparts in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on revisiting the Afghan strategy to ensure that we start to provide a more stabilising influence in that part of the world and to devote a fairer proportion of our resources to Pakistan rather than just to military effort in Afghanistan?

Of course, military effort is part of the approach that we need to take to making the world safer and ensuring that those states that have in the past undoubtedly been the basis of a terrorist threat are tackled, but so are diplomatic effort and international aid effort. In all those areas, we are working closely with the Government of Pakistan and other international partners—for example, the US—on setting clear objectives, especially with respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on how we can carry those out with the widest range of international partners.

I have not been approached by my constituents saying that too many powers have been given to the police and security services. My constituents are interested in the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are appearing to get away with saying some extreme things about terrorism and the murder of British service personnel. That is what my real concern is, and will my right hon. Friend take some strong action on that? Clearly, the hearts and minds campaign is very important, but work on it should be based on some fundamental truths, including that the biggest killer of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the vast majority of Muslims in this country condemn completely the actions of terrorists and want to join others in the community to promote the shared values that we spell out in this document and to work against those who want to promote violent extremism.

It has been confirmed in the past week that the Department for Communities and Local Government is only now compiling a central list of exactly where the £12 million of preventing violent extremism money has gone this year. That makes it very hard to see what due diligence has been exercised. Can the Home Secretary give the House an unequivocal guarantee that none of that money has gone astray, and that none of the £386 million spent overseas on preventing extremism projects has gone astray either?

I really do not think that that money has gone astray. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has already said that she will provide a report on that money at the end of this financial year. The domestic funding is going to groups from which we will expect evidence of the impact of the projects they are running. We have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission to evaluate the work, and their report has been published. As for the overseas work, my colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development track such work carefully to ensure that its impact is felt and seen, and that, internationally and domestically, it means we are safer.

I welcome this new strategy and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s staff and others across Whitehall who put so much effort into delivering this important document. Will she comment on the importance of capacity building in failed and weak states, especially in the policing and judicial processes? What plans do the Government have to build a truly comprehensive programme to deliver in those areas?

My right hon. Friend is right. We have identified that failed states and countries where there is unresolved conflict provide strategic sources of support for the terrorist threat. That means that we need to take a broader approach to our support for those states, which would include providing support for law enforcement and law and order. Our wide-ranging support programme is provided through the Department for International Development and directly by police forces in this country, and it goes to places such as Afghanistan and elsewhere. It is an important element of ensuring that that strategic problem is tackled in the overall attempt to reduce the risk from terrorism.

The Home Secretary will be aware that, every so often, protests and marches are held at which people use language, both orally and on placards, that many would regard as inflammatory. The police do not seem to take any action, despite the popular belief that various laws have been broken. Not surprisingly, there is a perception that some people can get away with breaking the law, whereas the majority of the public would be prosecuted for committing the same breaches. Will the right hon. Lady kindly assure the House that no one is above the law and that, when it comes to this issue, anyone who breaches the law will be prosecuted?

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. That was why we changed the law to ensure that the glorification of terrorism was a criminal offence. People have been prosecuted for precisely the sort of activity that he outlined. Our argument is that we should use the law for people who overstep it, but that even when they do not overstep that line, the Government, Parliament and the community more widely should nevertheless provide a strong challenge. That is something that I hope and expect to see.

Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that all measures to combat international terrorism will treat every British citizen in the UK in the same way? That is especially important for people in Northern Ireland. Will she assure the House that she will not require Northern Ireland citizens to have a passport to come over to mainland Britain, just because there is an open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend knows that the work that we are taking forward on the common travel area is the subject of discussion as part of the Borders, Citizens and Immigration Bill. The matter has been the subject of in-depth discussion in the House of Lords, where some of the assurances that she seeks have been given already. This is an important matter: we need to safeguard the rights of UK citizens in the way that she outlined, but we must also put in place sensible provisions to mitigate the risks arising from the open borders and the forms of travel within the common travel area. We will do that in a way that I hope balances both requirements, and that is the subject of discussion at the moment as the legislation proceeds through the House.

Why does section 9 of the document propagate the fiction that the Government are tackling internet-based extremism, when an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) of 24 February confirmed that the Government have not closed down a single internet site under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006? Is that incompetence or complacency, or a combination of both?

The answer is that sometimes, as police officers have outlined, the ability to threaten the use of section 3 has been sufficient to achieve those objectives. That has been what has happened.

I should like to add my thanks to another group of people who have helped to keep us safe—the moderate voices in the Muslim community who stand up to those who would preach violent extremism. I had the opportunity this summer to meet a visiting imam from South Africa, who seemed to be exactly one of those moderate voices. He recently applied to be a permanent imam in a mosque in Slough but has been refused, for reasons that I think are spurious. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the policy adopted by her Department works in practice as well as on paper?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many brave and important voices in the Muslim community speaking up for precisely the values that she outlined. I was not sure whether she was referring to an immigration decision that had been made—

indicated assent.

I will certainly undertake to review that particular case, given the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlined.

It is almost six years to the day since the invasion of Iraq. I am sorry that the Home Secretary does not feel that the report should be accurate enough to recognise the mistakes that have been made because of that intervention. I quote from page 23, which says that

“in 2003, radical Islamist groups emerged in and travelled to Iraq to take part in what they regarded as a new jihad”.

Further down the page, it says:

“After 2003 Iraq was used as a base for terrorist attacks”.

Does she not recognise that our going there with a military campaign left a power vacuum, which allowed al-Qaeda—the very terrorist group that she spoke about—into Iraq, and allowed it to operate from that country? Will she not put her hand up and say, “Mistakes have been made, and lessons must be learned”? If there is any reason why there should be an inquiry into the war in Iraq, this is it, because exactly the same mistakes are now being made in Afghanistan.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is looking in detail at the nature of the developing threat that we have spelled out in the Contest strategy. I do not wholly agree with his analysis—

Al-Qaeda was never there before the invasion.

Order.

Well, of course the threat from al-Qaeda pre-dated the military action taken in Iraq. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; it is a fact that the threat from al-Qaeda in the world pre-dated the action taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I would be very surprised if he did not understand that.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to operating within the framework of human rights, which of course imposes positive obligations on the state to protect us from the consequences of terrorism? May I also particularly welcome her commitment to complete opposition to the use of torture? Does she agree that we have to make sure that our agents overseas, who are operating in one or two dubious countries, such as Pakistan, are properly trained, and are under proper instruction to make sure that they do nothing that could in any way, shape or form be seen as making them complicit in the use of torture?

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week made it clear that we will publish, after a review by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the guidelines of the codes under which intelligence officers and armed forces question and deal with detainees overseas, to make it clear that the sort of provisions that my hon. Friend is talking about are in place. Furthermore, we will ask for that to be reviewed annually by Sir Peter Gibson, the intelligence services commissioner, and reported to the Prime Minister.

On Saturday, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), I took part in a discussion with members of the Youth Parliament about the Government’s Prevent agenda. The young people expressed real concern, not so much about the powers that the police have been given to tackle terrorism, but about the somewhat arbitrary and over-zealous way in which some police officers use the powers. What reassurance can she give me that sufficient guidance has been given to the police to ensure that they use the powers only when they are engaged in serious investigation of terrorist offences, and not more widely?

Guidance is given. There is both a legal basis for the power, and guidance is given to police officers about how the powers are to be used. My hon. Friend’s point identifies the need for the police to engage with communities, as happens effectively in many areas, to make sure that everybody can understand the nature of the powers, the nature of the threat, and what is, and is not, appropriate. That discussion should be had with the sort of young people with whom, I am pleased to hear, my hon. Friend and colleagues were engaging last week.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the point that my hon. the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made about the handling of the “Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare” document at the beginning of his questions to the Home Secretary, and the points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). I want to commend a young researcher of mine, Ruth Davis, who examined the larger version of the Order Paper and noted, in the Votes and Proceedings, that the paper had been laid before the House yesterday.

I attempted to get a copy from the Vote Office after 10 o’clock. The Clerk in the Vote Office informed my research assistant that a copy would not be available until the statement was made at 3.30 pm today, as the Vote Office had been told to release on instruction. An hour later, I returned to the Vote Office in Portcullis House, and copies were then available. I understood from later inquiries that the fact that the document had appeared in the Order Paper meant that it had been laid in the Journal Office yesterday, but only one copy was available there for Members, in the unlikely event that they were aware that it was there. There was no mechanism to make Members aware that the document was available in the House yesterday. The whole exercise is plainly unsatisfactory. Can it be improved?

I always want to make sure that hon. Members—Front-Bench and, of course, Back-Benchers—get information as soon as that information is published. I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to look into the matter and get back to him. That is the best thing I can do.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tabled a number of named day questions to the Secretary of State for Health, which were supposed to be replied to today. They are highly relevant to the tragedy of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, in particular on the question of a public inquiry and on protecting whistleblowers, which the Secretary of State said should be done. In the circumstances, may I please ask you to insist that my named day questions are answered today?

This is a matter for the appropriate Minister, who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, like his colleagues in the Staffordshire area, will pursue the matter in every way possible, and I will seek to help where I can. He has put the problem on the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House guidance? Is it in order for the Secretary of State to deny the existence of information on the growth of the terrorist threat, when that information is published by her subordinate, the head of MI5?

This is a debating point. It is a matter that would be best put to the Home Secretary.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the periodic review of the capital limits and tariff income rules and the personal expense allowance; to make provision for consultations on the level of those allowances and rules; and for connected purposes.

The Bill I wish to introduce seeks to tackle two injustices. The first concerns the penalty that over 500,000 thrifty pensioners face as a result of benefit rules which, in effect, assume that they are earning 8 per cent. interest on their savings. The second concerns 250,000 frail pensioners in care homes who are reliant on state support and are left with just £21.15 a week to cover their personal living costs.

Under existing benefit rules—the so-called tariff income rules—pensioners with savings over £6,000 who qualify for pension credit are assumed to be earning anything up to 8 per cent. interest on their savings. Whenever I talk about this matter with pensioner and other groups in my constituency, there is one of two reactions—derisive laughter or disbelief turning to outrage, often followed by the question, “Which bank gives that much interest on savings? I want to move my savings there straight away.”

A rate of 8 per cent. is significantly higher than any savings or investment account currently available, and it has not changed, up or down, since 2003. Benefit entitlement is calculated on an assumed rate of return that pensioners receive from their savings. Any savings below £6,000 are disregarded, but for every £500 above that, a saver is assumed to earn £1 per week from their investment.

My Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to review the tariff income rules and the level of capital. By placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consult widely about the rules and limits, I hope the Bill will force the Government to address the growing anomaly which discriminates against thrifty pensioners. I would go further, but that is as far as the rules of the House allow me in a ten-minute Bill.

The Government argue that the tariff income rules do not represent a rate of return for investing capital, but are there to

“provide a simple method of calculating the weekly contribution that people with capital in excess of £6,000 (or £10,000 if in a care home) are expected to make from those resources”.

However, the rules imply that pensioners with savings over £6,000 are receiving up to 8 per cent. interest. Back in the real world, where, for example, an individual savings account provided by the Government-backed National Savings and Investments currently offers only 1.62 to 2.16 per cent., that notion bears no scrutiny whatever. More than 500,000 pensioners are having their income overestimated, and are missing out on pension credit and other benefits to which they should be entitled.

The Government calculate, for example, that a pensioner with savings of £16,000 earns £1,080 per annum in interest. In the real world of, for example, National Savings and Investments ISAs, such savings would generate £259 to £345 a year. The Government’s assumption that such an interest rate is unrealistic is costing such pensioners at least £734 per year. As real interest rates fall, hard-pressed pensioners are being forced to run their savings down at ever faster rates. That is unfair and needs to be changed.

As for the second injustice, the personal expenses allowance is the only source of income for care home residents whose care is funded by the local authority. At the moment, 250,000 residents receive that support. Means-testing rules require those entering care homes with savings of less than £22,250 to surrender to the state their income, including their state pension and assets to cover the cost of their care. The personal expenses allowance is the amount that residents are allowed to keep for personal expenditure each week, and it currently stands at £21.15—about £3 a day. That amount is the only source of income for local authority-funded care home residents and is intended to pay for toiletries, clothes, gifts for family and friends, travel, hobbies, hairdressing and other leisure activities. Some have had to use that money to pay for health services such as chiropody and physiotherapy. In some cases, the personal expenses allowance is being called on to top up the fees that people pay in care homes. The personal expenses allowance is due to rise this April by 75p a week.

The case for reform and an increase is compelling. It has the support of many older people’s charities, as it is vital to ensure the dignity and self-respect of residents and to give them a certain amount of independence. Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all published reports demonstrating that the personal expenses allowance is crucial to the dignity of older people and must therefore be raised, as many elderly people live in poverty or their relatives supplement their allowances from their own incomes.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation conducted research among pensioners and concluded that the minimum such amount needed by a single pensioner to maintain an acceptable standard of living is £42 per week. The Royal British Legion, in its Return to Rationing campaign, also calls for a higher personal expenses allowance. In 2005, the Work and Pensions Committee stated:

“The Committee remains concerned at the low level of the Personal Expenses Allowance and repeats the recommendation of the Social Security Committee that the Government should ‘conduct research to establish the amount necessary to enable pensioners in institutional care to live their lives with dignity.’”

Three years later, the then care services Minister, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), twice gave an undertaking to Parliament that a public consultation would be carried out that included the rate of the personal expenses allowance.

However, the current care services Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who is sitting on the Front Bench, issued a written statement in January 2009 in which he refused to initiate a consultation on the level of the personal expenses allowance. How does that square with the Department of Health’s Dignity in Care campaign launched in November 2006, the stated aim of which is to ensure that older people are shown dignity and respect at all stages of their care? In that campaign, one of the Department’s dignity tests is

“to enable people to maintain the maximum possible level of independence, choice and control.”

The low level of the personal expenses allowance compromises the quality of life and dignity of older people by restricting their ability to meet their essential physical and social well-being needs. An amount of £21.15 is simply not enough.

My Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to undertake an annual review of the level of the personal expenses allowance, including public consultation, so that it can be increased to a level that guarantees a decent, minimum standard of living. Thrifty and frail pensioners in this country deserve a better deal than they are getting on such matters from this Government. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr. Paul Burstow, Steve Webb, Sandra Gidley, Tom Brake, Susan Kramer and Greg Mulholland present the Bill.

Mr. Paul Burstow accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 80).

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 37—Incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation: association with child sex offences

‘(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection 29B (1) insert—

“(1A) “Threatening” in subsection (1) extends to words, behaviour or written material which asserts or implies an association between sexual orientation and a propensity to commit child sex offences under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42).”’.

Amendment 1, in page 34, line 5, leave out Clause 58.

We now come to a short debate about the aspects of the Bill involving homophobic hatred. The offence of using threatening words or behaviour with intent to stir up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation was created by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Anyone who knows anything about the lives of gay people in this country knows why the provision was necessary and important.

Homophobic bullying and intimidation are distressingly common occurrences. Recent research shows that one in eight lesbian or gay people have experienced hate crime in the past three years. The problem is not only distressingly common but can have lasting deleterious effects on the lives and well-being of the victims. I hope that no one in this debate will question the need for the provision; if they do, I hope that they will be honest enough to say so openly.

This debate focuses on a particular aspect of the 2008 Act. Some religious groups have said they are afraid that the new law will catch them because their religion strongly disapproves of homosexuality, and their representatives or preachers want to continue to say so publicly. It is important, however, to stress what the 2008 Act says and what the new crime is. The Act says:

“A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.”

That means that the words have to be both threatening and intended to stir up hatred. It is not enough for the words to be insulting or offensive; they have to threaten. Nor is it enough that the words may have the effect of stirring up hatred; they have to be specifically intended to do so.

The crime is difficult to prove at the best of times. If a charge was brought against a saintly religious leader whose intention was to save souls, I cannot see how anyone might think that that offence had been committed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

This is a very short debate. Usually I give way freely but, if hon. Members will forgive me, I will not be able to do so with the same freedom in this debate.

The problem is not what the law says, but the fact that some rather odd investigations have been started—not under the provisions that I have mentioned, which are not yet in force, but under different ones. That has given rise to a great deal of anxiety and I am sure that we will hear about the cases in the course of the debate. However, it is important to realise that those cases are brought under entirely different provisions. It is right to say that people should not have to suffer unreasonable and unfounded investigation.

Cases in which people have been exposed to this sort of intrusive investigation, even though no prosecutions have been brought, have been those where the existing laws have been stretched even further to warrant the police coming and knocking on their doors. Should not the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when considering whether this legislation, which is very specific, may be a mistaken encouragement to others in authority to do likewise?

That is why it is very important that we have specific legislation to give guidance to the authorities about how they implement the new laws. The offence that is usually referred to, as in the cases of Miguel Hayworth and Stephen Green, concerns section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, whereby it is a crime to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. In my view, that provision is in itself a violation of freedom of speech. It seems to allow prosecution merely for insults, and for insults that are merely likely to cause distress but have not necessarily done so.

And were not intentional.

And without intention, as my hon. Friend says. That is why yesterday I would have supported his amendment, which we never reached, to remove the word “insulting” from that provision. That answers the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

The provisions regarding hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation are not the same—insult is not enough; likelihood of distress is not enough—but some people are anxious about the possibility that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will not recognise the difference. I accept that that anxiety exists and that we should do something about it—the question is what. There are two proposals on the table.

The first is to do what the 1986 Act already says following the so-called Waddington amendment, which went through after extensive ping-pong between this House and the other place last year, when the Government eventually gave way. I thought they were wrong to do so, and divided the House right at the end of that process. They did it because they were up against a deadline on another provision in the Bill about industrial action in prisons. However, they made it clear that they were with me in spirit, if not in the Lobby.

The Waddington amendment is sometimes called the free speech amendment, but it completely fails to mention freedom of expression. It says:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

There are many problems with the Waddington amendment. First, it is not aimed at the problem that it is supposed to solve. The problem lies not in the content of the law—a point that it seems to admit itself by using the phrase,

“For the avoidance of doubt”—

but in a possible mistaken interpretation of the law by the police and the CPS. If the police pay no attention to the wording of the offence itself, why should we believe that they will pay attention to the wording of the Waddington amendment? Secondly—this is the most important criticism—it either achieves nothing at all or is attempting to do something that we should oppose. If it really is

“For the avoidance of doubt”,

it adds nothing to the law at all, but if it is read in a different way, as a “deeming” provision, it is entirely unacceptable.

A “deeming” provision is a statutory section that tells courts to ignore reality but to treat one thing as another. Last year, we passed about 85 “deeming” provisions. In the Energy Act 2008, for example, we deemed a place where uranium was enriched to be premises owned or used for the purposes of the Crown, so that the Official Secrets Act would apply even when the place was owned by someone else. It is very common for us to do this. The difficulty with the Waddington amendment is that it can be read as deeming discussion of sexual conduct and so on not to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred even when the words actually were threatening and were intended to stir up hatred. That is particularly worrying in the case of urging persons to modify such conduct, which is what the amendment refers to. Such urging could certainly be done in a threatening way and with the necessary intent. There is a danger that the Waddington amendment could be read in a deeming manner so that a person doing such urging in a threatening way, with intent, would not count as having done so.

Proponents of the Waddington amendment put a lot of weight on the phrase “of itself”, but that phrase has at least two possible meanings. It could mean—this is the hopeful interpretation—something like, “But if the way this was done indicates threats or intentions, the provision does not apply.” “Taken of itself” might mean that, but it could mean something rather different, such as, “Ask only whether the acts complained of are within this provision, and ignore the context.” That would mean that “of itself” was an excluding phrase, rather than an including one. The latter interpretation would fit closely with the interpretation of the Waddington amendment as a deeming provision, which is a grave danger. That is why the Government are absolutely right to propose removing the Waddington amendment from the legislation. It is either useless or dangerous. I do not, however, think that the Government are right to offer nothing in its place, which is where new clause 11 comes in.

New clause 11 would meet head-on the problem of mistaken interpretations that lead to fruitless and distressing investigations. It would do so by requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue guidance to prosecutors on the meaning of the offence, and crucially, it would require chief constables to make the content—or for those Members who were here yesterday, the gist—of that guidance known to police officers. New clause 11 would also introduce a real free speech element by requiring the Attorney-General, whose consent is necessary for any prosecutions to go ahead, to have regard to all the relevant rights and freedoms in the Human Rights Act before giving that permission.

The hon. Gentleman is placing enormous reliance on guidance to be issued by the authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service or the police. I have an extract from the guidance on prosecuting cases of homophobic and transphobic crime, issued by the Crown Prosecution Service in November 2007. It describes homophobia and transphobia as

“terms used to describe a dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle. In other words, homophobia and transphobia are not restricted to a dislike of individuals; the dislike can be based on any sexual act or characteristic that the person associates with an LGBT person, whether or not any specific LGBT person does that act or has that characteristic. That dislike does not have to be as severe as hatred. It is enough that people do something or abstain from doing something because they do not like LGBT people.”

Surely that is hugely wide-ranging. Parliament has no say in this matter, and we could be faced with a situation where such an interpretation means that anyone who expresses a dislike of this kind of behaviour would be caught by the CPS under its interpretation of the law.

But that guidance has nothing to do with this aspect of the Bill because it has not yet been brought into force. I am proposing guidance specifically about that aspect; the word “homophobia” does not exist in the provisions we are talking about. Furthermore, the guidance would have to be issued after consultation with the Attorney-General. That means that there will be accountability to this House over what that guidance says, through the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.

The effect of the second part of the new clause would be that the Attorney-General would also have to have regard to all rights of freedom of expression before a prosecution was brought. That would feed back through the system and create at least some hope of a judicial review of a decision to go ahead with a prosecution, which there would not normally be. New clause 11 is far more focused on the real problem than the Government’s provisions and would help in a much less dangerous way, but it is capable of meeting genuine anxieties that have arisen in religious communities. It is necessary to do something of this nature rather than, as the Government suggest, do nothing at all.

May I bring my hon. Friend back to the fact that there are complaints, which I recognise as genuine, about misguided police investigations and the questioning of individuals who express an honest view? Although I disagree with that view, I absolutely accept their right to express it. Would not a combination of the production of guidance and reform of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove the word “insulting” not only deal with worries about clause 58 but solve those problems?

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has brought me back to his proposal to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act, because that would be a very important reform and I hope that the Government will take it up at some point.

Finally, I wish to speak to new clause 37, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend. It is an attempt to ensure that a particularly despicable form of homophobic intimidation comes within the meaning of “threatening” in the Act. That is the disgusting technique employed by certain political groups including the British National party, alleging that gay people have a propensity to be paedophiles and commit offences against children. That particular form of intimidation is not just unpleasant but literally life-threatening. I therefore hope that the Government will accept new clause 37 as well as new clause 11.

I hope later formally to press amendment 1 and to have the opportunity to vote on it. It has been signed by 14 other hon. Members of all parties.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) about new clause 11, and it is gratifying that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers recognise that there is a need for some reassurance about free speech on the statute book. Sadly, I do not feel that the new clause would work, and I shall say why later if I have time. Having heard the hon. Gentleman’s explanation, I still do not understand why they oppose so vehemently the inclusion of a simple free speech clause, which is much more likely to be read and followed by police and prosecutors than page after page of guidance. Either the Liberal Democrats are serious about protecting free speech or they are not, and I cannot understand why they played such an important role in securing a free speech clause in the case of the religious hatred offence, but oppose a much narrower free speech clause in the case of the homophobic offence.

The so-called Waddington free speech clause has now been law for 10 months, although by a quirk of how this place works the incitement law itself has not yet come into effect. If the offence had been in operation, and there was evidence that the free speech clause was being abused in the unacceptable way that the Government and the Liberal Democrats claim it could be, their case would be significantly stronger. However, I do not think that anybody really believes that such abuses are possible.

The wording of the free speech clause simply does not lend itself to the drastic and repugnant misuse that is alleged. Even Stonewall, which the Liberal Democrats often cite in evidence, does not appear to think that it does. Its briefing note, which came to all of us, stated that clause 58

“could mean that a very small number of people of extreme views attempt to avoid prosecution”.

I am sure that a very small number of people could do that using all sorts of methods, including the Human Rights Act 1998, evidence laws and other provisions that we consider essential to protect civil liberties and that we would never dream of repealing. Stonewall does not say that the freedom of speech provision would prevent convictions, thereby contradicting the Justice Secretary. It does not say that it will prevent prosecutions, but only that a small number of extremists will attempt to use it to get out of a prosecution. I do not think that they would succeed and I suspect that Stonewall does not think that, either. Stonewall has been candid. Its members know that a free speech clause does not seriously undermine their intention for the new offence.

Let me try to explain why there is a difference. The religious saver specifies that abuse and ridicule are not covered by the offence. It is tautological but they are not. The Waddington amendment does not exclude ridicule or abuse, because they are already excluded, but purports, according to one interpretation, to allow the exclusion of intentional threatening incitement as long as it refers only to practice. That is the difference, and the hon. Gentleman must explain whether he understood the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) when he outlined the potential effect of new clause 11.

I shall deal with that at the end of my remarks.

The religious free speech clause deliberately narrows the definition of the offence whereas the homophobic free speech provision does not. It simply clarifies what is already outside the scope of the offence. It is not a defence but a signpost, so that those involved at the early stages of the criminal justice system—police and prosecutors— have it drawn to their attention clearly and simply that certain legitimate activities are outside the definition of the offence. That way, if vexatious complaints are made, the police and prosecutors can simply point to the free speech provision and dismiss the complaint, instead of spending time and taxpayers’ money pursuing pointless complaints and trampling on the civil liberties of innocent people in the process.

It is also worth emphasising that the Waddington amendment refers to criticising not sexual orientation, but sexual conduct. I repeat: it does not create a defence. I welcome the support of Liberty—often paid-up members of the Liberal Democrat tendency—for amendment 1. It speculates that clause 58 might possibly remove a defence, but the explanatory notes have got it right. The Ministry of Justice officials who drafted the notes state in paragraph 372:

“The removal of the section will not affect the threshold required for the offence to be made out.”

Clearly, if removal of the free speech clause will not affect the threshold of the offence, its inclusion will not affect the threshold, either. We are tinkering. If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change—a favourite phrase of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). The explanatory notes are more accurate and fairer than the Justice Secretary was to those who tabled the free speech clause. On Second Reading, the Justice Secretary alleged that those tabling it intended to make a conviction difficult.

When Lord Waddington moved the amendment, he said that he wanted to make it plain

“that I did not in Committee, and do not now, seek to weaken the protection that the Government’s proposal is designed to give gay people. I have never set out to narrow the scope of the provision. My intention has been absolutely clear: to make clear what both the Government and I agree is outside the scope of the provision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2008; Vol. 700, c. 1365.]

I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that it is not our intention to provide help to those who use threatening language intentionally to stir up hatred against anyone. “For the avoidance of doubt” means just that. It does not change anything; it just makes clear what is already there. The Office of Public Sector Information’s online statute law database lists 588 legislative uses of the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt”—from the Children Act 1975 to the Crossrail Act 2008—so there is hardly anything unusual about it.

We need free speech about sexual conduct to be put beyond doubt. Joe and Helen Roberts, the Bishop of Chester, Iqbal Sacranie, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, and Lynette Burrows—I could go on—are all names synonymous with vexatious complaints to the police and with heavy-handed police intervention against people whose actions were not inciting hatred against anyone.

Now that the free speech provision is on the statute book, I wonder whether we should not look at things the other way round. Will removing it send the signal that discussion or criticism of sexual conduct is caught by the new offence? The Church of England—my own Church—seems to fear that it might. Its briefing says:

“If it is argued that it is necessary for the effective operation of the law that the amendment should be removed, the implication would be that such discussion or criticism could in itself constitute an offence, and to this we would be strongly opposed.”

Surely the retention of clause 58 would also indicate to the courts that this House does not believe that there is a need to protect freedom of expression in the way that the hon. Gentleman has articulated.

I am sure that that is right, and I strongly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

Someone else who has spoken out is the actor Rowan Atkinson, who just a few days ago addressed a Committee Room packed with Members of the House of Lords about the chilling effect of the law. He said that he did not think that he would be prosecuted because of jokes or drama about sexual orientation, but he also said:

“I dread something almost as bad—a culture of censoriousness, a questioning, negative and leaden attitude that is encouraged by legislation of this nature but is considerably and meaningfully alleviated by the free speech clause.”

He said that it

“would provide succour and reassurance to those of us in the creative world.”

My union, Unison, has sent out a briefing that says that the free speech clause is a “Tory wrecking amendment”. Unison is entitled to that view, but I do not think that it is being fair. The majority of the sponsors of my amendment are not Tories—although I welcome support from everyone—and even Stonewall does not believe that it is a wrecking amendment.

Let me turn to new clause 11, because I said that I would explain why it is not up to the job of meaningfully protecting free speech. For a start, it focuses mainly on the decision to prosecute, but we are not concerned about prosecutions at this point. None of the cases that I listed earlier resulted in a prosecution. The liberties of those people were breached not by the Attorney-General authorising a prosecution, but by decisions earlier in the criminal justice process.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman used the qualifying word “mainly”. Does he concede that new clause 11 also refers to the guidance going to the police?

There is some merit in that, but it is not a particularly strong point.

New clause 11 reminds the Attorney-General about human rights law, but human rights law applies to the police, prosecutors and the Attorney-General anyway and, to judge from the list of cases that I gave earlier, precious use it has been. New clause 11 also proposes guidance, but that will be issued anyway, without the need for a new clause. New clause 11 does not even say that guidance must deal with free speech; it just says that guidance must deal with

“the operation of the offence”.

Presumably that will include pointing out that the religious hatred offences have a free speech clause, whereas the homophobic offence does not.

Experience has shown that guidance is the problem, not the solution. When two six-foot police officers in body armour interrogated pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts for 80 minutes after they had phoned the council to complain about its gay rights policies, the officers were almost certainly acting in accordance with the guidance issued in March 2005 by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office. The guidance is called “Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service” and in paragraph 2.2.6 it tells officers:

“The perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor in determining a hate incident. The apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts.”

So a hate crime is to be treated as a hate crime even if it is not a hate crime—I need to think through that one. Paragraph 2.5.1 says:

“If, as victims of hate crimes or incidents, individuals experience indifference or rejection from the police this in effect victimises them a second time.”

I would hate to be a police officer trying to navigate my way through that lot. Some obviously believe that the answer is to come down like a ton of bricks on people about whom complaints of homophobia have been made, regardless of whether they have broken any laws.

I do not believe that we can leave it up to guidance to protect the precious civil liberty of freedom of speech. The existing wording asserted by Parliament less than a year ago provides clarity and reassurance; we must keep it. We must remove clause 58 from the Bill. I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote in a few minutes’ time, as I shall press the amendment.

As this is a short debate, I shall try to keep my remarks as short as possible. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has raised an important issue, and I think that there is common ground between us that the right to freedom of speech and expression must be protected. It must be protected in terms of how a statute would be interpreted in court, but it also has to be interpreted, to use an expression often used in the past by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), against the chilling effect that a statute can have if it is mistakenly applied by those in authority. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) rightly highlighted, there are, unfortunately, quite a number of examples in which laws—not this law, but others that in many ways stretch even further—have been applied in an oppressive way against perfectly respectable people. We have to keep that in mind when we come to legislate.

The hon. Member for Cambridge says that he considers that the law drafted last year—without Lord Waddington’s saving clause—would be sufficient and all right if we simply had guidelines. I have to say to him that I have some anxiety about using guidelines in that way. I accept that guidelines may be of some utility, but the fact of the matter is that if guidelines are disregarded and a legal process against an individual starts to get ratcheted up, there is nothing to stop it until the matter gets into the courts; and by then, as we know, a great deal of damage has been done in many cases to the individuals concerned in terms of stress, their reputation and the anxiety they are placed under—all quite needlessly. It thus seems to me that it would be sensible for the House to consider whether having a saving clause would help.

Now, Lord Waddington, as well as having been a past Home Secretary, and, I believe, a man of moderate views—[Interruption.] Yes, a man of moderate views, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Lord Waddington has also been a lawyer. When I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridge, it prompted me to look again at the saving clause to see whether it contained the mischief of being a deeming provision along the lines that he identified. He has clearly raised a serious issue for the House to consider. I have to say, however, that having looked at the provision and read it over and over again, I do not see that it can have the possible effect that he has suggested. The reason for that is the appearance of the two words “of itself” in its penultimate line which refers to something that

“shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.

It seems to me that those words make it absolutely plain that if a person carries out a discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices that is accompanied by threatening language, those words “of itself” would immediately take that person outside the scope of the saving clause. I have to say that I just do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the saving clause could be used to justify people coming forward and using hateful terminology, language and threats.

The more I listen to that argument, the more I take the view that a saving clause is required, so let me explain briefly to the House why I think this is so important. First, it will provide comfort and reassurance to people that they can continue to express their views. One of the things we are experiencing at the moment in this country is that people of moderate views on any side of an argument are increasingly deterred from expressing their views at all, but those who are full of extreme opinion, whether they be at one end of the spectrum or the other, are not deterred in any way by the law and, in fact, have a free field for themselves. That is not good for the health of our democracy or our civic life. We also need to consider that when Parliament enacts legislation in this way, groups and individuals will undoubtedly attribute to it meanings that Parliament may not have intended.

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s position on matters of free speech. He is right to criticise Stonewall’s view that that material would be caught. That is not our view, and I do not believe that it is the Government’s view. I hope that they will make that clear in due course.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we are to solve these problems, we must make it clear, in statute and in the minds of the police, that there is no right not to be offended? We need to get rid of the idea of insult, especially unintentional insult—as in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—from our statute book, and also to ensure that guidance throughout makes it clear to the police that they cannot take seriously complaints of insult which is not direct abuse. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that?

Yes. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that, in the time allowed, I have not dealt with that point.

The question of insulting behaviour raises an important issue. I am not sure that I can do full justice to it in this short debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to revisit it, I shall be happy to discuss it carefully with him. I can see that there may well be merit in getting rid of an expression that, I think, carries a number of connotations in wider legislation and that may be undesirable. There is, however, an issue that I think we cannot completely avoid. In some cases, insult, particularly if it takes place in a public arena, can reach a point at which it becomes incitement to a breach of the peace. We must guard against that possibility, but subject to that, I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

For the present, we have quite a simple issue to deal with. We have a piece of legislation, passed on to the statute book last summer, that has not yet been brought into operation and that has not yet been given the chance to see whether it works. I do not see anything in Lord Waddington’s amendment to justify its deletion at present. Its support goes much wider than people with a religious viewpoint. It extends across a wide spectrum of those who have deep anxieties about the erosion of freedom of speech, including within the theatrical world, as has been shown by Rowan Atkinson.

For those reasons, although I am mindful of the mischief that we are trying to address and I want the incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation to be prohibited, I believe the amendment does nothing to prevent that from happening that and does a great deal to ensure that the legislation that we pass is balanced. For those reasons, I support the amendment.