Uncrossing the wires in the IP Bill

The average age of the House of Lords is about 70 years old. Yet it has been left up to us to scrutinise, amend and improve the highly technical and technological Investigatory Powers Bill after its easy ride through the House of Commons.

Today, in the Bill’s Second Reading, I urged peers from all sides to not shy away from the technical nature of the Bill and to tackle the issues it raises head on and with gusto. Fundamentally this Bill will govern what powers our security services and law enforcement agencies have, under what circumstances they will be allowed to use them and how the use of these powers will be overseen. In all of this there is a balancing act to be done – it is the responsibility of the police and the security services to ask Government for the powers they believe they need in order to be effective and it is the responsibility of Parliament to balance those requests against the tests of necessity and proportionality.

To take an example, when the then Labour government pressed the case put forward by the police for 90 days detention of terrorist suspects without charge, parliament refused. It judged it to be disproportionate and unnecessary. Today and in the weeks and months to come as the Bill makes its way through the House of Lords it is this question that we must stop and ask ourselves again and again. Is it necessary and is it proportionate?

Following the Snowden revelations this Bill must command public confidence if it is to be respected and upheld on becoming an Act. This means that there must be robust and rigorous debate and Parliament should be given the information it needs to make a decision based on facts not fear (where have we heard that before?). That is why I am glad that David Anderson has been tasked with looking at the operational case for bulk powers which I am sure both Houses of Parliament will examine carefully once published.

Today in my speech I set out the priorities for the Liberal Democrats, priorities I hope that the Labour party and those from other benches will agree with and support. At the top of the list is Internet Connection Records. This requires internet service providers to record every website everyone in the UK visits, store the data for 12 months and reveal them to the police without a warrant if they suspect someone of a crime. This is a huge intrusion into privacy and is simply unnecessary. The security services have already said they don’t need to record everyone’s web history to do their job and the police can ask GCHQ to help in serious cases. Surely the police would rather the £1bn that is likely to be spent on ICRs in set up costs alone be spent on community policing at a more local level? It seems ludicrous to me that a time when the public spending pie is forever shrinking the Home Office seem to be considering spending vast sums on tools that may not even work – Denmark have just abandoned their equivalent of ICRs.

We will also argue for the Secretary of State to be removed from the issuing of interception warrants that have no national security or politically sensitive implications and a true double lock for those that do engage those issues. We will seek more robust oversight mechanisms and the separation of the authorisation and audit functions within the oversight body. We will seek more information about the request filter – which appears to be a one-stop shop for law enforcement to access all the available government databases holding information on individuals and seek to insert the tests of necessity and proportionality into every part of the Bill.

It will not be an easy fight but I hope that with reason and rationality on our side we will make significant improvements to this otherwise unnecessarily invasive Bill and give the House of Commons another chance to get it right.

* Brian Paddick Is Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Home Affairs. He was Deputy Assistant Commissioner in London's Metropolitan Police Service until 2007, the Lib Dem candidate for the London mayoral election in 2008 and 2012, and a life peer since 2013.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

11 Comments

  • In a time where people are looking for quick answers to complex challenges, it’s good to know there are still a focused few who are willing to wrestle with the whole issue of our digital liberties and not stand idly by.

  • Thank you Brian, and I second Paul Revell’s comments.

    It’s a sad reflection on the dismal ineffectiveness of Her Majesty’s Opposition that we are relying on the Lord’s to provide this detailed scrutiny.

  • Jayne Mansfield 28th Jun '16 - 12:54pm

    @ Nick Baird,
    Why are the Liberal Democrat Party not Her Majesty’s Opposition?

  • Ronald Murray 28th Jun '16 - 2:57pm

    Excellent article Brian sadly as we all know both Labour and the SNP abstained on this vote. Nobody is elected to abstain especially on important civil liberty issues. This sort of legislation will turn the country towards a Stasi KGB state. Who had so much information it was useless generally. As you say the police and security services can already get the information using GCHQ if required. I am no left winger having served in the Intelligence Corps reserve myself. The bill must be seriously amended or stopped.

  • @Jayne Mansfield
    Because we didn’t get enough votes, obviously! The Opposition is defined as the party with the second largest number of seats….

  • This morning I commented on Spencer Hagard’s article saying I was considering re-joining the party in the light of the referendum result, but that I was finding it difficult to do so. This piece has convinced me. In the disaster that is current British politics, we really do need a liberal voice, and so today I have re-joined.

  • Brian, a good clear level-headed piece about the progress of this emotive bill and what efforts you and the other LibDem peers will be doing in the coming months on it. I also endorse Paul and Nick’s comments.

  • Richard Underhill 28th Jun '16 - 9:23pm

    It can happen, has happened, that one party gets more votes and another gets more seats, that is the effect of the current electoral system.

  • Thank you for your hard work and diligence Brian. Despite the party’s currently misguided (in my opinion) attitude towards the EU referendum, I am delighted to be a member exactly because the Liberal Democrats are the only party capable of standing up against this overt violation of our privacy.

  • Brian Paddick 1st Jul '16 - 10:25am

    I am very grateful for the support and I am pleased to see new members joining. If we weren’t sitting down, it would have been classed as a ‘stand-up’ row that I had with the Commissioner of the Met on Tuesday over this issue. I attended a second briefing at the National Crime Agency yesterday where they again failed to convince me of the need for Internet Connection Records and confirmed my belief that other surveillance powers need greater levels of authorisation. I was a police officer for over 30 years. If I believed these new powers were necessary to keep us safe and proportionate, balancing the erosion of privacy against the benefits to law enforcement, I would say so. These powers are all pain for very little, dubious, unproven, easily evaded by criminals, gain. But don’t take me word for it. No EU country and none of the other ‘Five Eyes’ countries that share intelligence (USA, CAN, NZ, AUS) have ICRs. We will continue to fight for substantial changes to this Bill.

  • I do hope that Baron Paddick didn’t have to travel from the USA at a cost of nearly £ 9,000 to the taxpayer to make this speech.

    Lib Dem peer charged taxpayer £9,000 to fly business class for 4 minute speech…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/lib-dem-peer-charged-taxpayer-9000-to-fly-business-class-fo...
    30 May 2016 – Lord Paddick, a former Metropolitan police chief,……………

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatarmalc 23rd Apr - 10:34am
    There are two Scottish polls in Sunday’s newspapers – Panelbase for the Sunday Times and Survation for the Sunday Post. Voting intention figures, with changes...
  • User AvatarAlisdair McGregor 23rd Apr - 10:34am
    I assume this means "Tory MPs in pro-Remain seats", rather than actually pro-EU Tory MPs?
  • User AvatarWilliam 23rd Apr - 10:33am
    Not sure any Tory candidate counts as pro-EU, given the manifesto they will be standing on.
  • User AvatarRuth Bright 23rd Apr - 10:16am
    All very impressive. Very different (thank goodness) to the Dad's Army level of "support" non-target candidates used to get ten years ago or more.
  • User AvatarChristian 23rd Apr - 10:02am
    Ukips vote going down is not necessarily a good thing for us. They are rather handy at splitting the Tory vote and letting us into...
  • User AvatarJames 23rd Apr - 9:34am
    Sorry I know it's crazy but getting rather tired of this relentless optimism! Agree with Bill completely. I will not trust a single poll in...