Tomorrow, Parliament will debate a Statutory Instrument (SI) amending the 2004 Hunting Act. There are several changes, but the key one removes the current limit of two dogs that can be used to flush out foxes (and certain other animals) for the purposes of pest control.

This ninety-minute debate will be followed by a free vote. I will vote against the SI, because I believe it would effectively reverse the ban on hunting foxes with packs of dogs by the backdoor. I should say, at the outset, that there are strong views on all sides of this debate - which I respect. I have instinctive sympathy with groups like the Countryside Alliance, but I just don't agree with them on this issue. I would also point out that the SI does not purport to repeal the entire Hunting Act - so it (quite rightly, in my view) does not seek to revise things like the ban on hunting deer with dogs or hare coursing.

In fairness, it focuses in on a genuinely contentious question, namely: what is the means of controlling foxes as a pest, which subjects them to the least unnecessary suffering? I am no expert on what is quite a technical issue. So, since becoming an MP in 2010, I have proactively asked both sides of the debate to send me the various evidence on this issue. And my conclusion is based on an honest assessment of the evidence I have looked at.

It is clear that hunting foxes with dogs causes acute suffering to the fox. There is reasonable debate around other ways to effectively control foxes - by snares, shooting or other means. One aspect of the current debate has focused on whether shooting foxes might be both less effective and cause more suffering, because farmers and gamekeepers pursuing the fox cannot always kill it cleanly - which risks leaving a wounded animal to escape and/or die slowly under even worse conditions than being hunted by a pack of dogs. This is particularly germane to hilly terrain, where shooting can be less reliable.

Having looked again at this point, I have to say that I am not convinced that hunting foxes with a pack of dogs is substantially more effective or inflicts less suffering on the fox than shooting. The evidence - including the often cited study by the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - does not, in my view, bear this conclusion out. When the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs assessed that study in 2013, they were similarly unconvinced.

Equally, if the aim of the SI were really to make fox control more effective and more humane, why not propose raising the cap on the number of dogs that can be deployed to, say, ten rather than removing it altogether? I have had numerous conversations on all of these aspects over the last couple of months. In reality, the aim of the SI - which many of its supporters candidly concede - is to return to hunting foxes with packs of dogs as sport, rather than for pest control purposes. And I can't vote for that.

Update: The debate/ vote on the SI has been postponed - as reported here.

I was delighted to be appointed by David Cameron to serve as a Justice Minister in the new government, working in a great team under Justice Secretary Michael Gove.

Yesterday, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee published a carefully worded, but nonetheless far-reaching, report on the state of UK surveillance laws. It was precipitated by the Edward Snowden revelations.

The report concluded three key things:

• First, UK surveillance laws lack adequate safeguards and proper oversight.
• Second, the intelligence agencies are engaged in 'bulk' trawling of our email, internet and other communications date, rather than simply pursuing investigative leads on individual or groups of suspects. We don't know the scale of or criteria for such bulk trawling.
• Third, the entire legal regime needs an overhaul to strengthen oversight and accountability.

Should the public be told whether or not the Home Office have refused visas to individuals linked to serious crime?

I have tabled an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill, for consideration today, making the case for greater transparency. You can read my blog-post outlining the case for the change on The Spectator's Coffee House blog here.

Last Monday, Paliamemt's long-awaited debate and vote on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) descended into a navel-gazing farce. This week, there will be a second chance in the House of Commons.

Today, the Mail on Sunday features an interview with the latest victim, Keith Hainsworth, a Greek tutor from Hampton, caught up in an absurd Greek EAW, which turned his life upside down and cost him around £40k in legal fees. You can read the account here.

I have written a column to accompany the interview with the Hanisworths, which you can read here.

Yesterday, the House of Commons debate on the European Arrest Warrant descended into procedural shambles - which meant no debate on the substance of the various EU measures, and no vote on 24 out of 35.

I have written a column for The Times on the lessons we need to learn. You can access it here.

Today, a long list of lawyers, judges and academics put the case for opting back into the European Arrest Warrant in a letter to the Daily Telegraph here.

The letter was so stilted and inaccurate I felt duty bound to respond on Radio 4's the World at One here.

I have written a column for The Sunday Times, setting out the case for a Bill of Rights, and addressing the critics of Conservative proposals.

You can access it here.

I debated Tory plans to reform human rights laws with Shami Chakrabati on the BBC's Daily Politics show today.

You can watch the lively discussion here.

I have written a column today for the Daily Telegraph, on the proliferation of criminal activity online - and how we should strive to strike the right balance between defending freedom and security.

You can read the article here.

Today, on Radio 4's World At One program, I debated whether we need new legislation to fight terrorism, making the argument that we need to focus more on prosecution - enforcing the laws we already have more effectively.

You can listen to the discussion here.

In this month's issue of Prospect magazine I debate prisoner voting with Liberty boss, Shami Chakrabati.

It's a lively discussion, which you can read in full here.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned a bid by the intelligence agencies to hold a criminal trial in total secrecy.

Instead, a range of unprecedented controls will be imposed, using common law powers. I called for a debate in Parliament about whether this was necessary. You can watch here.

For too long, the Left has peddled the dogmatic assumption that there is a hydraulic relationship between the amount of money that goes into public services and outcomes.

In fairness, occasionally, some brave analysis on the Left has challenged this assertion. For example, in The Spirit Level,  by Wilkinson and Pickett - the tome currently treated as a Bible by Ed Miliband's team - it is pointedly noted that there is no relationship between health spending and life expectancy (in part because prevention is both more effective and cheaper than cure).

One area where the coalition has convincingly rebutted the myth is crime. Despite significant cuts to local police budgets necessitated by the parlous state of the public finances, the latest recorded crime figures show a 16% fall. Before you point to question marks over how police record crime, the alternative crime survey figures (based on household surveys) show an even greater fall of 21%, including a 22% fall in violent offences.

In Surrey, the figures are particularly interesting. Despite police budget cuts of 7% since 2010/11, through efficiencies, the force has actually increased officer numbers - by 56 - and recorded crime is down by 21%.

This week, Channel 4, The Guardian and The Independent broke the latest Edward Snowden disclosures about US surveillance - and UK involvement. They provide further evidence of the scale of US/UK surveillance and the indiscriminate techniques used.

The US have announced sweeping reforms to deal with concerns about intrusions into personal privacy, but the UK has lagged behind. Today, I wrote a column for The Sunday Times assessing the latest revelations - and what the government should do about them. You can access it here.

This week, I participated in a discussion with Graham Allen MP and Sue Cameron  from the Daily Telegraph, for the Week in Westminster on Radio 4, looking at the quality of laws being passed through the Parliamentary sausage-making machine.

You can listen here from 14 minutes here.