"Some might say that the amendment is now so moderate in its terms that it merely states the obvious and is therefore unnecessary, but those who say that are, I fear, closing their eyes to what has really happened in recent years."

"When it comes to language touching on matters of sexual orientation, there has already been a load of trouble with the police misapplying the existing Public Order Act. It is our plain duty to try to prevent this continuing to happen," he added. . . .

. . . The Government minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said the amendment is not necessary: "I want to say at once that I understand the issues that the noble Lord and others have raised; it is described as a chilling effect, this concern that the passage of this legislation would unnecessarily inhibit the absolute right of freedom of speech.

"I certainly understand those concerns, but none the less the Government continue to believe strongly that the kind of clarification in the noble Lord's amendment, which differs from his in Committee, is not necessary."

Labour Peer, Lord Clarke, said: "I shall make one comment on the Minister's reference to the 'alleged' evidence of heavy-handed police. There is no allegation about the couple in Fleetwood.

"It was a fact that these two lovely old people, who described themselves as Christian pensioners, suffered 80 minutes of interrogation by two six-foot policemen.

"That was not an allegation, it is a fact, because within 12 months-only 12 months-they got the apology that they deserved. They had committed no crime. There was no reason for what went on. But someone did not understand."

The Government said the issue could be made clear by publishing guidance instead of inserting a free speech protection into the Bill.

But Lord Clarke said: "If we mean that we are to maintain the principle of free speech, we should make sure that it is in this Bill and not leave it to the interpretation of guidelines, which would become another lawyers' paradise."

Following the Lords vote, the Government backed down and the measure was passed by a substantial majority in the Commons. The offence will become law with the free speech protection included.

Both the Government and the Liberal Democrat front bench strongly opposed the free speech amendment. All the more astonishing therefore that in the division peers backed the amendment by 178 votes to 164. Some 13 Labour peers defied the Labour Whip. The Bishops of Norwich and Chichester also supported us. It is clear that the Government could not get their own supporters to oppose the clause in sufficient numbers.

After the vote the Bill 'ping-ponged' back to the Commons. There the Government reluctantly decided to accept the Waddington amendment. Only the Liberal Democrat front bench objected, forcing a vote on the matter. In the end the amendment was accepted by 324 votes to 46 as the Government joined the Conservatives to keep the amendment. The Government did this in order to stop the Bill continuing to ping-pong between houses.

Ministers were keen to get the Bill passed quickly. No doubt they had in mind two previous defeats in the Lords, one of them just before midnight.

The first safeguard is that only threatening conduct is covered by the offence, not abusive or insulting behaviour. The second safeguard is that the prosecution must prove intention to stir up hatred.

Thanks to Lord Waddington we now have the third safeguard, a free speech clause.

We were right to be concerned that Gospel freedom was being put in jeopardy. In recent years some Christians have had to put up with completely unacceptable conduct from the police.

The Bishop of Chester and Joe and Helen Roberts may have been the most scandalous examples, but there were many more telling cases cited by Peers in the debate. Maria Eagle accepted that overzealous actions by the police had led to "ludicrous" investigations of perfectly innocent people.

With the Government's two safeguards in place, we agreed with them that a properly directed jury should never convict someone simply for exercising free speech. The problem was that a clause was desperately needed to draw the attention of prosecutors and the police to the issue of free speech and religious liberty. I am pleased to say that Lord Waddington's amendment will help to minimize the risk of problems with the new law.

Of course, the free speech clause offers no protection at all to anyone who stirs up violent threats against homosexual people. In our view people who threaten such violence should face the full penalty of the law. And there are already many good laws on the statute book to deal with such people without the incitement offence ever being needed.

The Government and Stonewall have got the offence they wanted. We've got substantial protections for free speech. In the coming years we need to be very vigilant to ensure that proper attention is paid to these protections by the police and prosecutors.

All in all this is one of the most providential results we have ever known. A great deal of work went on behind the scenes, not least the tireless efforts of Lord Waddington himself. Many Christians made the vote a matter for earnest prayer. We give thanks to God for this great deliverance.

Free speech has been safeguarded. Let us give thanks to God. Let us also work to safeguard the sanctity of life. Within the next fortnight for the first time in 18 years there will be crucial votes in the House of Commons on abortion and embryology.

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.