Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, after a characteristically entertaining contribution by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I agreed with a lot, though not quite everything, of what he said. It is also interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made a fantastically strong case for the benefits of staying inside larger organisations. It was an excellent case for why Scotland should remain with the United Kingdom. I congratulate him on making such a strong case here, and I look forward to hearing it elsewhere.

It is good that there is general agreement among the three Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties, and indeed the Scottish nationalists and others, that the UK needs to remain opted in to many of these measures—the most significant ones. That is very important and I am pleased to have seen it. I pay tribute to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for resisting some of the siren calls from their Back Benchers. They understand the importance of these measures and it is important that they stick with that.

I have a number of fears about where we might head. One, which I hope can be addressed, is the fear of a gap—that there may be a pause between us pulling out and going back in—and the consequences that that would have. This was mentioned earlier. There are some provisions for temporary measures and so on, but what would happen to the head of Europol, who is a Brit? Can he continue as head of Europol if we are outside, whether for a minute or a month? Would that cause problems? Would anybody agree to temporary transitional arrangements if that meant that the person in charge came from a country that was not part of Europol? That is a big worry.

The bigger worry, however, is that we might accidentally fall out of all these measures without that being the intention of the vast majority of the House. That could be because negotiations fail and we simply cannot reach an agreement—there was much in what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the concern that many of our European partners have about our attitude to European co-operation. What happens if someone tries to cause trouble and we cannot close the negotiations? That also applies to other suggestions. If we have a formal, fixed vote before negotiations, that will make it incredibly hard to have a proper negotiation. There are a number of core measures. There are also a number of peripheral measures. If this House says, “These are the absolute lines,” it makes it very hard to create a proper negotiation—actually to have a discussion with the European Union. That could lead us to falling out unintentionally.

I am aware of what happened in the House on the issue of military intervention in Syria. There was a proposal from the Prime Minister to have military intervention without UN approval, and there was a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition to have military intervention without UN approval. There was a small group across various parties—about 50 of us—who did not want intervention without approval, but because neither side would agree with the other’s version of the wording, our small band won. I am delighted about that, but I would not want the small band of people who want us to be out of all these measures to win because of a disagreement between the two sides.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, I thought that the Syria vote was on the option to keep a military option on the table, not an option to go to war.

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is right on the technicality that there would have been a second vote, but the principle ensconced in both was to have military intervention without the UN approval that some of us wanted. However, that is not the subject at the heart of this debate.

I share the concerns expressed about whether the whole effort has been worth while. The shadow Home Secretary is not in her place. I do not always agree with her, but I did agree when she said that the things we will not remain opted in to are, generally speaking, the less important ones. They are the ones that do not matter; they are more trivial. That is by design, but it also means that the entire balance will not have been changed as a result of this. The Home Affairs Committee agreed unanimously that if the Government proceed with the option as proposed, it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Some of us think that is a good thing—that collaboration and co-operation are worth having—but others have concerns. Has it been worth the huge amount of parliamentary, ministerial and official time and effort in negotiating with partners to achieve what will probably—hopefully—be a very small effect?

It is important to highlight why this matters. We have had a great deal of discussion about process, but we should remember why it is important. Our work with our partners in this area of policing and criminal justice is one of the great benefits of European Union membership. There are other benefits—on trade, free movement and a stronger voice on the international stage—but that ability to share information to catch UK criminals on the run and to bring them back to face justice at home, and to fight international terrorism and crimes such as child abuse, come from our participation in the European Union’s justice and home affairs measures. Europol is an incredibly important element in the fight against organised crime. We would suffer badly if we lost that. Cases such as Operation Rescue involved huge co-operation with 12 other countries, with Europol playing a critical role in intelligence and analytical support which resulted in the safeguarding of at least 230 children worldwide, 60 of whom were in the United Kingdom, and the arrest of more than 180 offenders, 121 of whom were arrested in the UK. That is the sort of thing that would be put at risk by those who are simply allergic to anything that mentions the word “Europe”, and there are a number on the Conservative Back Benches, though fortunately not on the Front Bench. We do take that lead. It is not a coincidence that the head of Europol is a Briton.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee.

A number of principles are at the heart of what we stand for, which is the way of life for which we are fighting. We may not agree on all of them, but one of them, surely, is that people are innocent until proven guilty. That is how our legal system starts. No matter how awful the crime of which someone is accused, that person should have his day in court, and should be found guilty or not guilty. However, Labour Members have spoken up against that in the House. They have said that when someone has never been convicted of a crime, the key should be thrown away. When we were discussing the legislation in Committee, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe)—I am pleased to see that he is in the Chamber now—said

“there are times when people have to be outside the legal framework.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 57.]

I do not agree with that as a principle for the rule of law in this country.

[Bob Stewart]

May I point out that it is not just members of the Labour party who are very concerned when people say that they want to do us harm and we cannot obtain evidence against them? I say that we must do something to keep those people out of harm’s way so that they do not harm our people.

[Dr Huppert]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I hope he would stand up for the rule of law, because it is fought for in many places. People who have committed terrorism offences, of which there is a huge range, should be tried, and if they are convicted they should go to jail for a long time. That is the best place for someone who is dangerous.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I find it very bizarre. There are a number of anomalies in the whole process because of how it is set up, but a gender recognition certificate may be applied for only two years after someone has transitioned into the acquired gender full time, so there has already been quite a long time to try to sort out other issues. Amendments 13 and 14 would simply end the spousal veto, so that people who transition do not have to rely on their spouses to give approval. Some spouses will not give permission for that to happen.

Amendment 16 deals with marriage and birth certificates when there are transgender issues. It argues that replacement marriage certificates should be available for people who have transitioned, so that we do not force them to be outed every time they have to show a marriage certificate. We would reissue a marriage certificate with the original date and new names. That is a simple thing, but it will make a big difference. Not everybody who has transitioned wants to be known as somebody who transitioned. Many people just want to be known by their new name and new gender, and they do not wish to explain their past in every case. They already face that often enough when dealing with various institutions and medical issues. We should not force people to out themselves every time that they need to present a marriage certificate.

[Bob Stewart]

There will be problems with police records, for example, if people change names like that, and that will cause a big problem.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In many cases, of course, there is no problem, and there are technical ways in which the issue has been resolved. It is already possible for people to transition and the state manages to cope—income tax, HMRC and other systems manage to cope and each have detailed arrangements. I do not think that would pose a problem for somebody transitioning to avoid their previous criminal record, but it would avoid their being outed inadvertently or accidently, which is a genuine fear for a large number of transgender people.

At the moment, a child’s birth certificate cannot be reissued on the parent’s transition. Again, that raises concerns about privacy and outing, not just for the transperson but for their families, for example, when applying for school places. Under the amendment, replacement birth certificates could be issued with the new gender and with the consent of the child once they have reached an age at which they are able to consent. Older children should clearly have some say in this. Such a provision would protect the privacy of the person who has transitioned where such information should not be revealed.

Clause 12 relates to an interesting aspect of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which gives grounds to void a marriage. It states that a marriage can be voided if

“the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

If somebody marries somebody who has already transitioned, they can at any point cancel the marriage on that ground. Technically, that applies only if the person did not know that their partner had transitioned, but the problem is that, if someone is not public about the fact that they have transitioned, they are at risk of their partner, at any time, saying, “I did not realise.” There would be little proof, unless we expect transpeople always to tell others.

We could get rid of that anomaly and still allow normal divorce proceedings to be started. The marriage could still be ended if there was an incompatible breakdown when a person discovers the history of their partner—there would still be a way out for them if they feel they cannot continue—but we should remove the automatic sense that somebody has done something wrong simply by being transgender. That is a real concern. There have been such cases in Scotland—they were not to do with marriage, but with other sexual interactions—and there have been sex-by-fraud cases simply because somebody was transgender. We simply should not allow that to happen. Those are small and specific issues, but the proposals will make a difference to a persecuted minority within our country.

Government amendments on pensions and transgender people are welcome. I thank the Government for making that step, which is welcomed by the trans community and is to be supported.

Before I conclude, I want to highlight amendment 49, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope she does not mind my speaking to it before she does. The amendment would end a bizarre anomaly. If I marry somebody and die, they get a survivor’s pension related to the amount of time that I have spent in work. However, if I have a civil partnership with somebody and die, the payment they receive is related not to the time when I started work, but to the time when civil partnerships came into existence. That is bizarre. Any insurer would not know whether I would choose a marriage or civil partnership. It seems odd that one pension is backdated to when I started work, and the other goes only part way. It would make sense if both pensions dated back to the date of the marriage—I can understand the logic, although I do not believe that that is the right solution—but there is a blatant and odd inequality.

Most employers pay no attention to the anomaly because they are keen to be helpful to their employees. Many of them can nominate people to whom they are not married to receive the survivor’s pension. However, we should not have such inequality written in law. I apologise to the hon. Lady for saying that before she has had a chance to do so.

I hope that the Government take those issues seriously, because we can fix anomalies of the past and avoid making further ones in the present.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. She is right that we need to encourage more educated scientific debate among the general public. That is a larger issue than the subject of the present debate. The question is how far one goes in providing the sort of privilege that we are talking about. Peer review processes are significantly better developed than what we see in newspapers. I would expect newspapers to have more access to lawyers who could advise on libel because they deal with a range of issues. But there may be ways of going slightly closer to what the hon. Lady suggests and I would encourage something like that to happen.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it not possible that we could have a sort of citizens advice bureau for people who are thinking of publishing something so that they could go to someone who understands the issues, without having to go through the law to get guidance quickly, so that good debate is not stifled?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I can see where he is coming from. The clause goes further than that and it is better. It says that for peer-reviewed academic publications, unless they are malicious, there is no risk. So the citizens advice bureau approach is not necessary. Anybody publishing in this way knows that they are fine, as long as they are not being malicious, and I hope people would not seek to be malicious in this way.

However, we do see such cases, and not only the famous ones. In the past six years one in 10 of all High Court libel cases have involved an academic or scientist. It is a real issue, and I believe firmly that scientists and other academics should focus on doing research in their field, not on researching the law. That protection is very welcome.

Clause 10 is another welcome addition to the Bill, particularly because it protects booksellers. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) mentioned, they sometimes face cases on questionable materials. If they are selling two such books a year and are not interested in defending the case, they just remove the book from their stock. It should be the author who is responsible, wherever possible.

I support most of the other clauses. I am pleased to see clause 7, which extends some of the privilege protections, clause 8—the single publication rule—and clauses 9, 11 and 12. I am pleased to see clause 13, which gets rid of the Slander of Women Act 1891. Society has moved on slightly in terms of gender roles since 1891.

This is a good Bill, but there are still some areas of concern. I agree with those who have said that one of the key areas that has not been looked at enough is costs. It is key to get the costs right, but that is not entirely within the Bill. Cost is not just a matter of writing legislation. Legislation alone does not solve every problem. The Government need to do a little more work to make it clear how they will reduce costs, in addition to the legislative changes that are being made.

Then there is the issue that has been touched on recently about corporations and other non-natural persons. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that non-natural persons are not natural persons: companies are not the same as people. They do not have feelings in the same way and they could be treated differently. There have been many cases, such as the McLibel case, of corporations which abuse their power and their resources to take unreasonable libel actions.

The Joint Committee recommended that corporations should have to prove that they have actual, substantial financial loss and that they should have to get permission from the court in order to take actions. That seems a modest way to go, given some of the other proposals, which are quite tempting. An extreme view is that corporations should not be allowed to take libel action at all. This has been tried in Australia, so that only corporations with fewer than 10 employees are allowed to take any sort of libel action. I have spoken to a number of lawyers in Australia, and that does not seem to be the best way to go. I hope the Government will not go ahead with that idea, although I was initially attracted to it.

I rarely disagree with comments from the Libel Reform Campaign, but I do not like the idea of courts being asked to make declarations of falsity. I was initially persuaded of that, as people who served on the Committee are aware, but I think on balance that it is hard to expect a court to say definitively, “This statement is false,” because new evidence can come up. It is a very hard thing for any court to say.

Lastly, let me turn to clause 5, which deals with an incredibly complex area. I think that the idea of a new defence is a good approach, but it needs to be tweaked somewhat and the Government’s proposed regulations should be published and available for discussion alongside the Bill. I hope that the Government will be absolutely clear that this new defence is an optional one that website operators can use but do not have to. It does not impose on them a duty; it merely gives them a defence if they comply with some regulations. Furthermore, I hope that the Government are absolutely clear that the existing defences from the e-commerce directive remain in place and that the rules about being a mere conduit and so forth still apply in exactly the same way they have done. It is very important that we do not see any inadvertent weakening of the protections available.

It is also important that we are clear that the good practice of post-comment moderation used by some website operators, whereby they try to do their bit to filter out the things they can tell are inappropriate, does not itself bring about liability, so long as that does not change the meaning in a damaging way or significantly increase the scale of publication. This was recommended by the Joint Committee and accepted by the Government, because if the BBC, for example, spots something inappropriate and removes it, it is important that that does not render it more liable to the thing that they could not have spotted because they would not know the facts of a case.

It is also important that there is an ability to preserve some anonymity. It is right that action should be taken against a person who posts something online, but there will be cases, such as those of whistleblowers and dissidents, in which there is a real reason why anonymity should be preserved. The key point is that there should be a communication channel between the person complaining and the original author, even if that is mediated by a third party.

This is a very complex area, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate that he was open to considerations to try to get it right. I hope that either he or the Minister will be able to arrange for the Bill team to meet me and the Libel Reform Campaign, internet service providers and organisations we have been talking with, such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Mumsnet, to discuss how we can get this right so that we get what we all want: something that works in a clear and simple way and gives the right protection to the people we wish to be protected. This is a good Bill and I am delighted to support its Second Reading.

Forensic Science Service

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I have been approached on this issue by a number of constituents, particularly those who used to work in the Huntingdon lab. I also have an interest as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. In fact, I have a number of parliamentary questions on this matter tabled for answer today. Sadly, as I came into the Chamber, they had not yet been answered, but I am sure they will be during the course of our debate, and they will of course be published. As ever, the Government will respond, I am sure, in time.

I congratulate the Science and Technology Committee, and particularly its Chairman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), on their work. It is a shame that the good and balanced work from the Committee—with one major exception, which I will come to later—has been let down slightly by the quality of the debate on both sides of the House. We have heard a rather tedious debate about who made what mistakes at which point in the past, and a rather odd debate about who is in favour of the private sector and who is in favour of public sector administration. My answer is that I am in favour of whatever gives us the best forensic science services, and I hope that all Members would agree with that.

It is important to have high levels of accreditation and standards. Otherwise, there could be concerns, although they might have been over-egged. It is certainly true that in 2009 the US National Academy of Sciences strongly recommended that forensic labs should be buffered from forces investigating crime. That is because pressures necessarily arise from working too closely with them. What that means is that we must ensure that the new scheme does not fall foul of those traps. We certainly do not want the same police officer who is leading on an investigation to be the same person who does the forensic analysis. I believe, however, that it is possible for the police to find a way around that, as, for example, with the good work done by the National Policing Improvement Agency in looking into serious injuries. It has a rather gruesome collection of images, and I do not believe that suggestions of bias have been made in that case.

It is important for the Government to keep an eye on this issue, and I hope they will consider reviewing the impact of the changes over the coming years, particularly in respect of the trust of the public and ensuring that we do not see miscarriages of justice. I do not think that they will happen, but I want to know that the Government will ensure that they do not. They must ensure that there is enough time to analyse samples. A huge number of analysts in the New Scientist report I mentioned earlier said that they were not given enough time to do that properly. I hope that the Government will make sure that we secure the trust of the public in that respect.

There is a related problem. Programmes such as “CSI” have led the public to believe that forensic science is far more powerful than it really is and much more clear cut. It is simply not as simple, powerful or clear cut as is often portrayed. That causes real problems in both directions when a case is being examined. It means that juries expect simple, clear answers, but also that they could be excessively concerned at the times when they are not given what they expect.

There is also a problem—I hope the Minister will find some way to tackle it—with a recent ruling. As far as I know, it has not been overturned, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The issue is how juries are taught to deal with the prosecutor’s fallacy and the statistical errors that can arise when looking at numbers. It was ruled in a recent case that Bayesian statistics could not be used in the court. I find that very worrying, because such statistics are key to the way in which data are interpreted. The premise is simple: the information that is available should be examined before a test is carried out. For example, if we hear the noise of hooves, we know that it could be being made by a horse, a zebra or a unicorn, but given our prior knowledge of which animal is most likely to be proceeding along Horseguards, we conclude that it is probably a horse. That sort of analysis is very simple, and it ought to be possible to employ it in a court. I hope that there will be a way of ensuring that juries know how to use such information, because the generating of information—which is what we are talking about—is useful only if the information is examined correctly.

I was shocked to discover that the regulator did not have the statutory powers that I think are necessary, and that that had clearly been the case for a long time. I had genuinely assumed that we would provide regulators with the powers that they need. I hope that the Government will think again, because providing statutory powers would provide some extra reassurance, particularly given the new world in which we are living. I also hope that regulators will have the resources that they need to do their job, because as providers become more disparate, the process of regulation will be increasingly important.

I had intended to ask what more would happen about cold cases and existing samples, but the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dealt with that, and I assume the Minister will respond to what he said. Nevertheless, we need to think about how we are to ensure that there is continuity after the FSS.

One aspect of the Committee’s report causes me great concern. It involves the role of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman. He was personally criticised in the report, and I very much regret that: I do not think that it was appropriate. I think that there is a problem with the way in which the Home Office looks at scientific advice, and with the seniority and the access that the chief scientific adviser is given in the Home Office. I have raised those points in the Committee with the chief scientific adviser, who has a slightly different perspective on the issue of the amount of access provided.

I think that chief scientific advisers should sit on the boards of their Departments, and should have access to information enabling them to deal with any concerns at an early stage rather than waiting to be invited to comment. There is a problem across Government in regard to their role, and that means that there will be similar problems in a number of areas in which advice is sought too late in the process. I fear that the Minister will not be able to tackle that problem alone, and I hope that the Government as a whole will ensure that chief scientific advisers are given an important role.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Surely it is up to the chief scientific adviser to put his spoke in at an early stage, rather than waiting to be invited to comment. He should have enough intelligence—I mean intelligence in the classic military-type form—to understand what is going on, and to say “Look, I want to comment on this.”

[Dr Huppert]

I will not make the standard jokes about military intelligence that would normally arise at this point. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend means. That is precisely why I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.

Cycling

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

As part of my role as co-chair of the Liberal Democrat committee on transport, I have had several conversations with transport committees. I will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman about the details later.

The issue is not simply about infrastructure. We have to look at training and education for cyclists and drivers alike. I am pleased about the Bikeability scheme, which will train 400,000 nine to 11-year-olds a year. It is vital that our children are introduced to the benefits of cycling at a young age, that they are encouraged to cycle to school and that they are given the training to do so safely. I would like to see all cyclists cycling safely and legally, as all road users should.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It may surprise some to know that I cycle in London. Twice I have been hit from behind by motorists. I noticed in the three years that I cycled—until I was very badly hurt—that many cyclists totally ignore red lights. It is also up to the cycling community to behave properly. It is not only the responsibility of Government or motorists. I am sure that everyone here obeys red lights. I used to watch about 50% of the cyclists go straight through red lights and I saw accidents occur because of that.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that the 50% figure is accurate. Several studies have shown that it is smaller than that. The key point is that all road users should behave legally. Drivers should not speed and should not use their mobile phones. Cyclists should not go through red lights. Everybody should stick to the rules and then everybody would be safer. If we can move away from the argument of cyclists versus car users versus taxis or whatever to everybody behaving safely, we would all do much better.

The Internet and Privacy

Debate between Bob Stewart and Julian Huppert

Thursday 28th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great privilege to be able to take part in this debate and, again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing it. It is welcome and timely.

I have had an interest in the internet in many areas, politically as well as personally. Any combination of technology, commerce and civil liberties was always going to interest a Liberal science geek such as me.

As someone who is still new to Parliament, I have been shocked by the aversion that some hon. Members have to matters technological. There are a number of constraints on using tablets in the Chamber, and various other archaisms, which I hope, together with many other new Members, that we will be able to change. However, some of the aversion is due to the frustration of getting parliamentary hardware and software to work. Privacy is, though, something that Members should be concerned about, however technologically literate they are. It affects us and our constituents, who use the internet for all sorts of purposes. It affects businesses and how we interact with all those things.

Some first principles have been touched on, such as the balance between openness and transparency on the one hand and privacy on the other. One of the issues is about education—people who use things such as Facebook or Twitter do not understand what they are doing with their information. People giving information about their opinions on BT, available to the outside world and for BT to have a look at, is a perfectly valid choice. However, people should know that that is what they are doing, and they should be choosing to do so, rather than discovering that they have inadvertently done so without thinking about it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What about a health warning on Twitter? On cigarettes we have “Beware of death” or something. On Twitter we could have “Beware of giving too much information” in a big sign—it has got to be big—or something like that. Do those things exist and I just cannot see them because my eyesight is so poor?

[Dr Huppert]

“Excessive twittering may be bad for your future”—the problem would be fitting something into 140 characters. We can run out of space quickly. We need to have some way of educating people on the subject. That involves education in schools and, I am sure, the involvement of websites.

However, I am concerned about the idea of imposing draconian regulations on internet use. There is a balance. We know that it is hard to have regulations, with too many strict controls on what happens and what is done. I was recently with at least one other hon. Member in the Chamber on a trip to China, where we had some interesting discussions about the Chinese efforts to control what can and cannot be done on the internet. I am sure that we do not want to go down similar routes.

As the hon. Member for Harlow has already made clear, we cannot ignore those problems—they are affecting people and are doing so now. However, he did not mention a number of things. For example, the Firefox extension called Firesheep enables users to log into other people’s social networking accounts—I have not used it myself, I hasten to add.

As I mentioned in my intervention, the Government have a critical role. I am even more concerned about the Government’s ability to do such things. While we can argue about which is worse, there is no doubt that the Government should be seen to be leading the way in respecting citizens’ rights.

I was delighted to see in the coalition agreement the commitments to “roll back state intrusion” and “restore our civil liberties”. I suspect that many, if not all, of those in the Chamber today would agree. [Hon. Members: “There are no Labour MPs here.”] There is a Labour MP here—I am sure that he would support the coalition agreement on at least that point.

The welcome words in the agreement have to be matched by actions in Government. There are issues on which we have not done enough to reverse what happened under the previous Government and, in some cases, there is a risk that we will be worse.

The last Government had an extraordinary predilection for hugely costly and intrusive IT projects and policies—I was delighted to serve with the hon. Member for Harlow on the Identity Documents Bill Committee and I was pleased to hear that the only one of the cuts that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said in an interview that he agreed with was getting rid of identity documents. I am delighted that the Labour party has finally come along to that sensible position.

I turn to a couple of things being driven by the Government that I believe interfere with privacy. The first is the Digital Economy Act 2010. I could talk for the remainder of this debate about some of the controversial aspects of the legislation, but I shall not detain the House as I assume that everyone is aware of the debate and the many issues raised. However, I draw attention to a case that was reported in July this year, after the Act was passed.

A woman received a letter from her internet service provider accusing her of downloading homosexual pornography illegally. That eventually resulted in her discovering that her son was gay. That is not the way that privacy should be broken; we can expect to see many more such cases if provisions of the Act are not substantially altered—or, as I would like to see, abolished. BT and TalkTalk attempted to secure a judicial review, which reveals that even industry heavyweights understand the problems caused by some aspects of the 2010 Act. If the offensive parts of the Act are not repealed, it is essential that they are significantly modified, by legislation or through the Ofcom code, so that ordinary criminal or civil procedures can be used; we already have procedures for dealing with theft.

I hope that the Government will avoid the general trend towards administrative systems laden with Executive involvement. What is the Minister’s current thinking on the 2010 Act? Will the Freedom Bill be able to stand for freedom in this area as well as in others? Will he confirm that the Government will not adopt a position in which internet users will be guilty until proven innocent, as the Act effectively demands?

I could speak about summary care records and the fact that the Government have failed to deliver what I believe was an important promise, and I can give examples of the consequences. Instead, I shall speak about the reported revival of the intercept modernisation programme, although I am sure that it will not be known by that name.

I remind the House that the IMP was an ambitious £2 billion project that would have forced ISPs to log clients’ internet and e-mail activity for at least 12 months. That, I believe, is a great infringement of privacy. Indeed, the coalition agreement explicitly stated that

“we will end the storage of Internet and email records without good reason”.

There is no doubt that we face threats from cyber-terrorism. Malicious breaches of security could cost the Government, businesses and individuals dearly in all sorts of ways. However, that does not give the Government the excuse to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.