Good evening. The codename for their plot was the Madhatter's Tea Party, but it was Islamist terror, not a children's story they were talking about.

A mother and two daughters from South London had planned to attack the British Museum and Buckingham Palace with knives and grenades.

Their contacts, though, had been infiltrated by MI5, and the three women were convicted this week.

The latest of more than a dozen recent plots

to be foiled by the security forces.

The same day, the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, the first person, incidentally from a Muslim

background to hold one of the great offices of state, came up with new proposals to counter

Islamist and right-wing terrorism.

He wants to declassify the information held on some 20,000 suspects by MI5

and share it with other agencies, government departments, councils, local police.

He says there's been a step change in the threat, with plots developing faster

through encrypted social media, which were harder to crack.

There are those who see this as a dangerous step towards a police state. There would be no way of knowing what information was held about you,

let alone challenging its accuracy.

Entirely innocent people could end up being effectively blacklisted.

The terrorist's ultimate aim, they say, is to destroy the tolerance and freedom of the state, and we would be doing the job for them.

Where to draw the line between security and liberty?

And what are the implications of what many regard as a new culture of suspicion?

That's the moral maze tonight.

Our panel, Melanie Phillips, social commentator on the Times, Claire Fox from the Academy of Ideas,

the historian Tim Stanley, and the priest and polemicist, Giles Fraser.

Claire Fox, I've heard you describe yourself as an extremist from time to time. Where do you stand on all this?

...