For what reasons she decided to prevent Michael Savage from entering the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Savage was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and by fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence. The exclusion is in line with the strengthened policy on exclusions that I announced to the House on 28 October last year. In his radio broadcasts, Mr. Savage has spoken about killing 100 million Muslims, and he has spoken in violent terms about homosexuals. Coming to the UK is a privilege. I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life.

Notwithstanding the Home Secretary's answer, she will be aware that the things of which she accuses Mike Savage are also illegal in the United States of America, and he has not faced prosecution there. Does she realise how ludicrous her ban is and the disrepute into which she has put this country in the eyes of many right-seeing—and, indeed, left-seeing—people in the United States? Does she also plan to ban Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh and other middle-aged, white, ordinary American radio presenters?

I subscribe to the view, as expressed by another Member of this House, that

"It's clear for reasons of our security that we must expel or refuse entry to those who preach hate, pit one faith against another and divide our society."

Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he was right. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman believes that it is appropriate for somebody to use words about Muslims such as,

"I said so kill 100 million of them, then there would be 900 million of them. I mean would you rather us die than them?", then he has a very different set of values than I have, and I want to ensure that those are implemented in the decisions that we make about who we do and do not allow into this country.

Many of us would agree with the thrust of what the Home Secretary has said. On the other hand, had that person come to Britain, he would find the great politeness of the people from her Department who welcome people to this country, but quite the rudest notices in the world. She—or someone—has removed "please" and "thank you" from every notice that her Department puts forward to visitors and returning people. Could she make Britain's welcome to those whom we want a good deal more polite than it is now?

We have tried to improve the notices at our borders. It is important that when people enter the UK it is clear to them that it is the UK border and that we have certain conditions in place. My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration is taking up points about the welcome to people coming to this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about our wanting to welcome those who come here in good faith—those who will make a contribution to this country, and who come here for holidays—and to differentiate between them and people such as Mr. Savage who clearly have no place in this country and would have no welcome here.

The Home Office's production of a "name and shame" list was a self-evident gimmick and demeaning to Government, and it has led to a completely avoidable legal action that is producing splendid publicity for Michael Savage. Does the Home Secretary think, on reflection, that that was a mistake and the wrong way for the Government to behave?

No, I do not, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman's party leader that we need to be clear about who we will and will not accept into this country. We need to be clear about the values that we have. Where someone preaches hate and foments hatred in the way that has happened in this case, where they provoke others to serious violence, and where they use phrases such as, in relation to somebody who said on his radio programme that he was gay,

"You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!", then it is right that we express our view about that. We recognise that coming to this country is a privilege, and we will express our values in terms of those we exclude.

If Savage had said what he said about Muslims about Christians or Jews, what would be the reaction?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Had an Islamic preacher said the equivalent about killing 100 million Jews, there would rightly have been outrage. There would have been—as there have been from Conservative Members—calls for that individual to be excluded. In developing our policy, we have taken an even-handed approach in saying that if people foment hate—if their aim is to drive Division between different faiths and potentially to cause inter-community violence in this country—then they are not welcome in this country.

If it is an even-handed approach, could the Home Secretary explain why we have welcomed back to this country from Guantanamo Bay two UK residents, but not citizens, who are not only suspected terrorists in Afghanistan but wanted on murder charges in Spain?

We have, for some period of time, taken a position of wanting to see Guantanamo Bay closed. In order to help to facilitate that, we have accepted back, and in fact sought the return to this country, of those who are nationals and have previously been resident in the UK. I think that President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay is the right one, not solely because of the individuals there but because of the ability that that gives us internationally to take forward the sort of values that we hold, and the US holds, in fighting and tackling terrorism.