| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): Is not one of the problems the length of time taken by Oftel to come to a judgment? Can Oftel's investigations be speeded up?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Oftel is increasingly aware--as are Ministers--of the need to move in internet years, rather than in parliamentary or calendar years.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): In a speech given in Cambridge on 13 September, the Prime Minister said that the Government attach a great deal of importance to getting their policy on e-commerce right. What assessment has the Minister made of the recent survey showing that two thirds of e-commerce companies feel let down by the Government's proposals? What is her assessment of the verdict of Mr. David Grossman, of the distinguished solicitors firm Berwin Leighton, thatthe industry was "distinctly underwhelmed" by the Government's proposals?
Ms Hewitt: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to industry, but that is typical of Conservative Members these days. In fact, Bill Gates and Microsoft have already described the Bill as a model for Europe. In addition, Intel, IBM and other major industry players in this country have welcomed the Bill. I hope that the House will do the same.
The Bill will help us to get the market framework right. It will build trust in the authenticity, confidentiality and security of on-line transactions. It will confirm the legal validity of electronic signatures, a matter for which business has pressed urgently. It will enable us to modernise the statute book by allowing the Government to amend references to paper signatures, documents and records--there are about 40,000 such references so far--to include their electronic equivalents.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet):
Would it surprise my hon. Friend the Minister to know that the pharmaceutical industry, in which I used to work, has been pressing for that measure on electronic signatures since the mid-1990s? The Conservative Government of the time did nothing about it.
Ms Hewitt:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes exactly the right point. I shall come to the record of the Opposition in a moment. The Bill is the product of extensive consultation, which finally began in the dying days of the previous Administration. In March 1997, the then Conservative Administration consulted on proposals to introduce a mandatory licence scheme for trust service providers, with mandatory key escrow. In April 1998, one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), announced that we were abandoning the Conservative party's approach. In March, we consulted again on our voluntary approval scheme. In July, we published the draft Bill for further consultation.
At least some Opposition Members have abandoned the view that they held in government. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said:
The Conservatives wanted a system of mandatory licensing for trust service providers. That was rejected by industry. We have always preferred a voluntary approval scheme. The Conservatives wanted a system of mandatory key escrow that would have required users of encryption to deposit copies of the keys protecting their confidential
data to be lodged with a third party. We listened to business and industry and ruled that out in March. In May, we published a Cabinet Office study that confirmed that partnership with industry rather than mandatory key escrow was the best way to meet law enforcement concerns. Clause 13 explicitly prohibits key escrow requirements being imposed in any order made under the Bill.
Now the Conservatives tell us that they will oppose the Bill until the European Union has sorted out every issue to do with the framework of statutory regulation and private international law. I know that the Conservative party has lost touch with business and is obsessed with the single issue of Europe but, even for it, that is ridiculous. Increasingly, the Tory party reminds me of some of the computer games that our children seem to enjoy so much: Aliens 3, starring the hapless Leader of the Opposition; Quake 2--follow the latest upheaval in the Conservative party as it gets stuck further and further in sleaze; and Tomb Raider--await the return of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
My hon. Friend mentioned Microsoft. Has she seen this morning's letter from its chairman, David Svendsen, congratulating the Government on introducing legislation that will serve as a model for Europe? Does that not contradict the position adopted by the official Opposition?
Ms Hewitt:
Precisely so. If British people and British businesses are to win the benefits of electronic commerce, we need this Bill. We were determined to get the Bill right and to get it soon. We will achieve both goals.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton):
Does the hon. Lady really think that she has delivered the Bill as soon as she could have? She said in a press release:
Ms Hewitt:
That is a bit rich coming from a supporter of a Government who did nothing whatsoever about the matter until their final weeks. We made it clear that we want the Bill to achieve Royal Assent by next April. I have no doubt that we are on track.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Does the Minister agree that, if regulation is to apply, it must be transparent and justiciable? Will she comment on the case raised by Article XIX in which the Lord Chancellor has closed a website simply because he does not accept that its content is appropriate or suitable? Will she ensure that, if the Government wish to take action against electronic communication, they do so within the law?
Ms Hewitt:
I am not aware of the details of the case to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) refers. The law applies on-line just as it does off-line; I am sure that he supports that.
I shall return to the European legal framework, but, first, I draw the House's attention to an important change that we have made to the Bill since the consultation draft.
The draft Bill included provisions to modernise the powers of the law enforcement agencies. Those provisions are essential because, unfortunately, the internet is transforming crime as much as it is transforming commerce. It provides new opportunities for money launderers, for fraudsters and for those who trade in child pornography.
I am sure that all Members of the House agree that the police must have adequate powers to deal with such crime. If they have the power--under warrant, for example--to seize a suspect's files or to intercept his communications, they must also have the power, if those files or communications are encrypted, either to obtain the material in plain text or to obtain the key to decipher it.
Those measures were originally included in the consultation draft, but will now be included in the Bill for the regulation of investigatory powers, to be introduced during this Session by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). Much of the response to the draft Electronic Communications Bill concentrated on those law enforcement measures. I know that my hon. Friend will consider that response carefully before the investigatory powers Bill is finalised. I also know that he will take into account the concerns of business--especially those of the internet service providers--as to the possible costs to them of those measures. Indeed, I shall ensure that their concerns are effectively and strongly represented to the Home Office. Furthermore, the Bill--like every Bill introduced by the Government--will be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The debate on the Bill will give right hon. and hon. Members ample opportunity to discuss those important law enforcement issues.
"I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has fileted from the previous draft of the Bill various aspects of the statutory trusted third party regime. I have recanted proposals that I made when I was a Minister".--[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 241.]
He was right to recant because, as he recognises, the policy of this Government has been quite different from that of our predecessors.
"We are determined to get e-commerce law right and to get it in fast."
The Bill was in the Queen's Speech last year, but was not published in its final form during the period covered by it. Does she agree with the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the Government have been moving as fast as a glacier on this?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |