Dan Rogerson MP for North Cornwall

The five-strong team of Liberal Democrat MPs for Cornwall today (Wednesday) branded the Queen's Speech an "authoritarian distraction" from the issues which affect their constituents.

This Monday, the Liberal Democrat group proposed their own 'Cornish' Queen's Speech which would include new legislation to tackle high water charges in the South West and the rise of second home ownership in Cornwall.

Liberal Democrats in Westminster are calling for key elements of ten Acts of Parliament to be repealed. The party's Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP, says present legislation for compulsory identity cards, restricting the right to assembly and allowing house arrest is illiberal and unnecessary. He proposes to repeal these and other measures in "a single Act to dismantle the apparatus of authoritarianism that has been forced on the nation."

Commenting after the Queen's Speech, Falmouth and Camborne MP, Julia Goldsworthy said:

"It's time for the Government to stop restricting our freedoms and address mounting inequalities. Across the whole range of policy areas from housing to water bills, from post offices to hospitals, Labour has failed to address the ruinous legacy of the Conservative years.

"Only the Liberal Democrat alternative would put more power in Cornish hands to deliver a fair deal for our area."

North Cornwall MP, Dan Rogerson added:

"While the Government continues to raise the spectre of terrorism as an excuse to erode civil liberties, the real issues which affect our constituents go unresolved.

"Any ministerial moves towards extending imprisonment without trial or charge to ninety days – a suggestion already roundly rejected by Parliament – will do nothing to keep us safe. Such measures merely undermine the very principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law which we seek to defend."

Notes to Editors:

On Monday, Cornish Liberal Democrats proposed Bills to:

• Devolve power to a strategic body for Cornwall
• Tackle high water charges
• Scrap Council Tax
• Increase affordable housing, and reduce second home ownership
• Create a shared ownership scheme for the Royal Mail, which would provide £2bn to help Post Office branches broaden their business and invest in new technology.
• Keep hospitals open with a fair funding formula for Cornwall’s health service
• Switch taxation from people to pollution, by cutting the basic rate of income tax by 2p, and raising the threshold at which people pay the higher rate in favour of green taxes on the most polluting flights and vehicles

Liberal Democrats’ top ten laws to scrap

1. Restrictions on protests in Parliament Square
Sections 132 to 138; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
The police can now impose any restrictions they think fit on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament Square. Citizens of this country should not have to ask for the right to protest outside the Parliament that they elect.

2. Identity Cards
Identity Cards Act 2006
Identity cards are unworkable, expensive and illiberal. Labour is already spending £95,000 a day on developing the project but it will not stop terrorism, crime, illegal immigration or benefit fraud.

3. Extradition to the US
Part 2, Extradition Act 2003
This act makes it much easier for the US to extradite people from the UK than it is for the UK to extradite people from the US. Not only is the treaty unbalanced, but it means that British citizens can extradited without any evidence being provided.

4. Conditions on public assemblies
Section 57, Clause 123, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
Labour has given the police the power to impose conditions on any protest or gathering even if just two people attend. Until 2003, these restrictions could only be imposed on larger gatherings, of 20 people or more. There is no reason to curtail the right to protest in this way.

5. Criminalising trespass
Sections 128 to 131, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Thanks to this part of the act, a Home Secretary can make trespass a criminal offence on any land where they say it is in the interests of national security. This is defined very broadly however – and there is no need for them to justify their decision. If there is a need for restrictions like this they should be agreed democratically.

6. Control orders
Section 1, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
These allow restrictions, potentially going as far as house arrest, to be imposed on the mere basis of 'reasonable suspicion'. They can be made for up to 12 months and renewed indefinitely. The Home Secretary can also decide to opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights and issue control orders that amount to detention without trial. Liberal Democrats would repeal the law and start again: the Home Secretary should not be allowed to opt out of our human rights agreements, or impose control orders outside the judicial system.

7. DNA retention
Sections 78-84, Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Sections 9-10, Criminal Justice Act 2003
The UK has the largest DNA database in the world, but many of those stored on the system have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. Thousands of innocent children are on the database – because the police have the power to take DNA when they arrest someone and then keep it permanently, even if the person turns out to have done nothing wrong. Ethnic minorities make up 8% of the UK population but 24% od the database. We understand the case for keeping DNA of the convicted, but innocent people's DNA should not be kept indefinitely.

8. Public interest defence for whistleblowing
Official Secrets Act 1989
It is important that national security is protected, but sometimes it will be the case that it is in the public interest that malpractice or illegal activity is exposed. The Official Secrets Act includes no public interest defence, however – so whistleblowers remain unprotected, even if their action is very much in the public interest. Part of the reason for this was a series of high-profile embarrassments for the Conservative government of the time; ministers' embarrassment should not be allowed to overrule the public good.

9. Right to silence
Sections 34-39, Public Order Act 1994 – England and Wales
It was a long-established principle of a fair trial that defendants had the right not to be forced to incriminate themselves. In 1994, however, the Conservatives allowed juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence. This represented a major attack on the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."

10. Hearsay evidence
Sections 114-136, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Protections against the use of hearsay evidence were in place to ensure that a trial was decided on the facts of the case. Hearsay evidence cannot in practice be cross-examined in court, which removes a vital safeguard for the accused. Labour, in 2003, widened the circumstances in which it could be used. We would repeal these changes and return to focusing on securing fair trials and reliable convictions.