THE continuing row over the Government’s new proposals to extend surveillance to internet users shows no sign of abating. The legislation is due to be announced in the Queen’s speech next month. This further encroachment on our civil liberties does not sit comfortably with me, or with several of my Conservative colleagues. And to add fuel to the flames, we denounced not dissimilar plans when in opposition. We need to know what has changed and why the State needs further access to our private lives. Justice Minister Ken Clarke opines that 75 per cent of all communications can now be monitored, if necessary, whereas that figure was 90 per cent in 2006. Technological advances such as email, Skype, text and instant messaging mean that users are virtually untraceable. Understandably, then, criminals and terrorists favour these means of communication. Clearly, that is one good reason to be able to intercept them. The problem with these debates is that you rely on those in the know, because we don’t have access to the briefings and intelligence reports we need to make an informed decision. Our mentor has to be common sense. And, for me, the question must be whether greater access would prevent a serious crime or terrorist attack, or help to bring the perpetrator to justice afterwards. If the answer is a definite yes, I would suggest we look at it, so long as there are safeguards in place to prevent abuses, and there are. The police and security services would have to apply to magistrates for a warrant, as they do now. However, arrangements which currently cover only the telephone system would be extended to all calls, emails, texts and website visits. Internet providers would be required to keep details, though not content, for two years. These proposals are unsettling, but freedom has a price and as technology advances at frightening speed democratic governments must keep pace. Secret courts, though, are quite another matter!