Heath quizzes Harman

• [Mar 26]: David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): ' . . WE hear repeated reports about the police using the Terrorism Act 2000 for inappropriate purposes, whether it is questioning 2,000 people at train stations-train-spotters are apparently a threat to the state-photographers taking pictures of London street scenes, anglers who make the mistake of fishing at night, or John McDonnell attending the House of Commons. . . '

I previously welcomed the two days allotted to the Report stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, but last week's timetabling was a disgrace. None of the clauses relating to the reform of the coronial system were reached; nor, indeed, were the clauses relating to the law of homicide. The Government literally got away with murder.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to another problem? It relates to the Committee considering the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which was mentioned by Alan Duncan. Setting aside the Government's difficulty that only six of their 12 MPs on the Committee bothered to turn up-I would love to have heard the conversation between the Deputy Chief Whip, the hapless hon. Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Mr. Simon-126 clauses and 20 new clauses remain to be considered by a Committee that has only three sittings left. Some clauses may not be considered either in Committee or on Report.

I have a revolutionary suggestion for the Leader of the House. We should do something that is normal in another place and that used to be normal in this place: we should not have a restrictive timetable, and we should let this House scrutinise the Bill properly and fully. If there are difficulties later, the Government can react to them, and if there is a need to shorten speeches, no doubt you can intervene, Mr. Speaker, but the House should have its say on that important Bill, which would be welcomed by all.

Most Members are aware of the difficulties caused by endemic AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in much of the developing world. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been set up to deal with those issues. May we have a debate on the workings of the fund? The UK has a relatively good story to tell-quite properly, we have taken the lead-but there is still a shortfall between the fair share of the British contribution and what is actually being received by the fund, which is desperately short of cash. May we in this House consider how we can better help people suffering from those awful diseases in other parts of the world?

May we have a debate on the misuse of powers granted by this House to combat terrorism and serious crime? We heard a chilling report today about the number of local authorities that use surveillance powers for trivial purposes, and we hear repeated reports about the police using the Terrorism Act 2000 for inappropriate purposes, whether it is questioning 2,000 people at train stations-train-spotters are apparently a threat to the state-photographers taking pictures of London street scenes, anglers who make the mistake of fishing at night, or John McDonnell attending the House of Commons. Those cases involve misuse of those powers. Can we have a debate?

Lastly, I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Lady has a Facebook account, and I do not know whether she has been poked recently-Facebook users know what that means-or whether she has been asked to intervene. My Facebook friends are very upset at Home Office plans to snoop on sites such as Facebook, Bebo and MySpace. May we have a debate on that disproportionate and unnecessary extension of state powers, which leads us, despite it being 2009, inexorably to "1984"?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): On the Coroners and Justice Bill, if we had not had a programme motion, we might have ended up with two days' discussion of inquests in camera. Twenty-five Members contributed to the first debate, which is why time was squeezed for the important discussions on murder. Because so many Members wanted to contribute to the first debate, exceptionally we allowed two days. If we had not had a programme motion, we would have ended up with two days' debate on the first question. The programme motion ensured that on the second day we discussed incitement to homophobic hatred and a Government amendment tabled in response to complaints from the Opposition and others about our data-sharing measures. We tried to be as helpful as possible. Even though we provided two days for debate, it was not possible to discuss all the issues when so many Members wanted to contribute on the first matter of inquests in camera.

We will make sure that the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill is properly scrutinised.

On local councils and surveillance, local communities ask local councils to use CCTV to catch fly-tippers and stop illegal trading. Local communities ask for CCTV in shopping centres and their local areas, which has nothing to do with the misuse of anti-terrorism powers. Having said that, the Minister for Local Government has written to local councils reminding them that they should use their surveillance powers appropriately.

The hon. Gentleman asked about tackling disease in developing countries. He understands that we have increased the budget for developing countries to help to tackle disease. This Government played a leading role in the introduction of millennium development goals to deal with avoidable diseases, and we have worked to move up the international agenda tackling the problems faced by developing countries. Even in the midst of our preoccupation with the effect of the global downturn on this country, the Prime Minister has been sure to emphasise, through the work leading up to the G20, that we must act together internationally to protect developing countries from the downturn as well.