Federal Conference this autumn takes place in Brighton, and as you would expect FCC and conference office staff are in discussion with Sussex police about security arrangements for conference.
1. Security at conference
Most security arrangements will be those we always have at conference and are not controversial among conference-goers (as shown by reps’ feedback). The Brighton venue is of course very used to these levels of security, both for our conferences and those of other parties.
The police and security services have however also requested that we use ‘accreditation’ for conference reps. There are widely different views within the party on this and FCC is therefore seeking views from members. This paper sets out the proposal, why the police are requesting it, some further information, and finally some of the arguments for and against. FCC would be grateful for any views on this by 21st April, and will review these at a meeting in late April prior to registration opening in early May.
Under all circumstances, however, FCC is extremely clear that this is our party’s conference, it is up to us to decide who attends, and how any personal data is managed (subject to the Data Protection Act) .
2. Why the police are proposing accreditation
Two senior officers of Sussex police attended an FCC meeting in late March and outlined the reasons they are asking the party to use accreditation. It is their clear view that party conferences, including ours while we are in government, attract people who wish to cause serious harm and violence to conference-goers (and also to those working in the venue and other residents of Brighton, whom they also have a duty to protect). This includes large international terrorist organisations, but also individuals who are able to make bombs or other equipment. They gave some examples of lone individuals who have caused serious violence, or attempted to, ranging from the 1984 Brighton bombing to the Norwegian gunman at a youth political event.
Because of the particular attraction that major public events which are heavily covered by the media have to people who want to cause serious violence, they believe that in order to protect the security of everyone at conference, attendees should go through accreditation.
The police are extremely clear, as are FCC, that preventing any other difficulties or embarrassment for the party are not part of their remit. They are focused only on specific information which might indicate that someone may pose a serious security threat to other conference-goers.
Anyone can join the party for as little as £12 and can then attend conference as a party member.
3. The proposal
Implementing accreditation would mean that, alongside the normal registration process for conference, members would submit some further personal information, including past addresses and passport number. This information is used to check whether the police or security services have any information to suggest that the registrant might pose a serious security threat to conference. Any other information about the individual, including any unrelated criminal convictions, will not be considered.
4. Safeguards
The party and the police have agreed some further safeguards which would apply if we do use accreditation.
Anyone registering can insist that any security information they provide be deleted after the conference. Some people did this for autumn conference last year and their information was deleted.
Even if someone does not ask for their information be deleted, it is held on a free-standing system which is used solely for purposes for accreditation for party conferences (ours and other major parties’). No other police or security system is able to access it for any other purpose.
FCC is in discussions with the police so that if someone wishes their accreditation to be done by someone from the local Sussex police, rather than the National Accreditation Team (formed by Greater Manchester Police), they should be able to do this.
5. Decision process
The vast majority of people registering for conference, of course, would go through the process without any issue.
Last year the communications were not as good as they could have been and FCC is committed to ensuring that all those attending conference receive timely information about their registration.
If the checking process does recommend that someone not be accredited, FCC is proposing (and Sussex police are also happy with), that the case be referred to the party president, the chair of FCC and the party’s chief executive. They will review the reasons for suggested declining accreditation, and the information on which it is based (where privacy laws permit), and take a decision on whether to accredit the individual. They are clearly strongly committed to the principle of party members being able to attend conference, and will only consider not accrediting a member of the party if they believe there is very strong evidence that that individual may pose a serious security threat to the conference. The final decision on accreditation rests with the party, not with the police (and the police accept this).
6. People who have changed identity
Last year there was considerable concern about people who have changed identity, and whether they would be required to provide information about their former identity.
West Sussex police have been clear that where this applies, individuals can apply under their current identity, and do not need to disclose their previous identity. They are familiar with dealing with this issue, and have ongoing dialogue with relevant communities locally about handling this issue.
FCC is also very happy to follow up any further specific concerns relating to this issue. It is clear that the police understand this issue well and are committed to dealing with it sensitively. We will engage with LGBT+ and other relevant party bodies and individuals.
7. Case for using accreditation
- We have a duty to all those who attend our party conferences – staff and visitors as well as party members – to ensure their security. The high-profile nature of party conferences mean that they can attract people who wish to cause serious violence and harm to large numbers of people. Accreditation may be a proportionate means of excluding anyone for whom there is strong evidence to believe that they are likely to pose a serious security threat to conference-goers.
- If the police recommend the use of accreditation and the party decides not to do so, the party itself is potentially in an extremely exposed position. Having to take liability for those attending and risk invalidating our insurance.
8. Case against using accreditation
- Party members should be free to attend their own party’s conference without any checks.
- Concerns about personal data mean the party should not require members to submit such data to the police.
9. Party views
FCC is well aware that this is a very sensitive issue within the party, with strong views on both sides. It has taken into account the motion passed in Birmingham. It takes its role taking a decision on this on behalf of the party extremely seriously and would therefore welcome views on the proposal, by 21st April. It will consider this at its meeting on 23rd April and take a decision.
Views should be sent to [email protected]
Andrew Wiseman is Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Conference Committee.
* Andrew Wiseman is Chair of the Liberal Democrats' Federal Conference Committee.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Lucy Letby Inquiry and expressing concern about trial verdicts
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
Red Flags
Councillor joins Lib Dems in Western Isles
Today we gave our thanks to the 999 services and other public servants
The Genome Rides on a Citric Acid Bicycle
John Barrett
Peter Martin
Ellyott
Joe Bourke
James Fowler
75 Comments
TL;DR version: “We’re going to ignore last September’s conference motion which opposed accreditation, and the statement from LGBT+ Lib Dems which opposes accreditation, and keep asking the question until we get the answer we want”.
And if people need to be reminded what useless security theatre this accreditation procedure is, let’s look at the two examples cited in the article – the 1984 Brighton bombing and Anders Breivik. Neither of whom were registered delegates for the political conferences they attacked, and neither of whom would have been caught by a delegate accreditation process.
I am perfectly happy with the measures to implement physical security inside the conference – they may be inconvenient, but they are proportionate (except when the police tried to stop me entering Sheffield because of my ear piercing). This “accreditation” process does nothing to improve the security of conference delegates or the wider Brighton public, and we’ve already seen it keep away committed activists who know that the police can’t be trusted to handle personal information accurately and sensitively. Nick Clegg has spoken against unnecessary and disproportionate CRB checking with its high failure rate – and now Andrew Wiseman wants to enforce it again, against the wishes of Conference.
“It is their clear view that party conferences, including ours while we are in government, attract people who wish to cause serious harm and violence to conference-goers (and also to those working in the venue and other residents of Brighton, whom they also have a duty to protect). ”
Did they give any evidence of the scale of the threat?
“They gave some examples of lone individuals who have caused serious violence, or attempted to, ranging from the 1984 Brighton bombing to the Norwegian gunman at a youth political event.”
The1984 bombing was not commited by a lone individual (at least not in my understanding of the phrase as usually used in a security context) as the IRA was a highly organised and co-ordinated. It is unlikely that Magee was acting alone or without approval and support form higher up in the IRA.
In any case that bombing took place in the conference hotel not the conference venue and was IIRC a bomb planted a month before the event running on a timer. The equivalent venue in Gateshead could well be the hotel I was in on the Saturday evening where no accreditaiton of any sort was required.
Furthremore the Norweigan shootings were committed by someone who got into the venue unaccredited. Neither example quoted would have been prevented by a system of accreditation.
What Dave said.
Conference spoke listen to it.
Could I urge everyone with views to email them, as suggested in the article, to [email protected] that way all of FCC will see them.
Thanks
Andrew
@Dave Page I’m sorry you’re making this personal against me “now Andrew Wiseman wants to enforce it again, against the wishes of Conference”. The paper was requested by FCC written by another member of FCC, comented on by a few others and I agreed to post it as chair of the committee.
Andrew
I came here ready to unleash both barrels, but Dave has said most of what I wanted to clearly and concisely enough.
No, Andrew. Just no.
Conference voted against this.
It is utterly pointless security theatre, which will not stop anyone who is determined to attend from doing so, but causes inconvenience at least, and in some cases actual trauma, to party members who wish to attend conference.
It is HORRENDOUSLY discriminatory for transfolk (expecting transpeople to just take the word of the police that they will be nice, especially those transfolk who have already experienced bad treatment from the police, is akin to a women’s refuge sending battered wives back to their abusive husbands every time the husband says “I’m sorry and I won’t do it again”)
We’re supposed to be Liberals, FFS. If we don’t stand up to the rozzers and their ever-increasing demands for control over everyone, who the hell will? Tell them to sod off. And if they say we can’t have conference without accreditation, tell them we’ll take conference elsewhere. Sure, it’ll mean more work for Emma (sorry, Emma), but better a free conference held as a flashmob in a park somewhere than kowtowing to stupid crap like this.
“free” as in liberal, not “free” as in costs no money, BTW. Even I’m not that naive…
I spoke on this at last year’s conference; I think it would be a useful addition if we could have a link to the motion passed at the end of that debate by conference. Thank you.
“@Dave Page I’m sorry you’re making this personal against me “now Andrew Wiseman wants to enforce it again, against the wishes of Conference”. The paper was requested by FCC written by another member of FCC, comented on by a few others and I agreed to post it as chair of the committee.”
@Andrew Wiseman, are you saying that you don’t endorse these suggestions and are posting them against your will, then?
I don’t know how much louder and clearer it can be said; we do not want or need this kind of pointless security theatre. Can some one please explain why my refusal to undergo these ‘security’ checks makes me more of a potential danger in the Autumn than I was in the Spring, when I attended conference without needing them. Anyone?
If one follows the instructions of the Police on security matters alone, we may forget that we are actually a liberal and democrat Party, where its members influence the decision making process.
As a former police officer, I would say that it is right and proper that the police service raises any concerns regarding potential security issues, but unless they have precise evidence, or the ‘real’ intelligence that an act of criminality is going to happen, then we as a Party need to realise that what they say is only advice, and that it should not necessarily be taken as an edict.
The police service forgets at times, that is meant to be a defender of democracy for everyone, and not restricting democracy to a few.
The accreditation does seem to be a rather invidious form of security theatre. As others have said, it protects delegates within the conference venue, where we already have badge checks, metal detection, bag searches (which, please note, I don’t see anyone objecting to), but it does nothing to secure the hotels, the queues for security, or any meetings outside the main venue, where (as per 1984) any rational would-be terrorist would already be focussed on. Add to this that accreditation is known to have significant levels of false positives and false negatives, and that its negative effects are focussed on some already-marginalised groups in society, and it’s not a measure that we, as liberals and Liberal Democrats, should be countenancing.
By the way, it seems whoever drafted the article above didn’t quite get around to fleshing out the bullet points in section 8. This was surely an unfortunate oversight, rather than an attempt to minimise the arguments against accreditation.
No.
PS. If anyone could explain to me how either of the two examples cited (IRA bombing in 1984, Anders Breivik in 2011) would in any way have been averted by accreditation, I’d be most grateful.
Judging from the above this is shaping up to be a dialog of the deaf. Could everyone turn down their complacency/outrage controls & start preparing to compromise, like proper liberals .
What would the police do if we do not agree to accreditation? Would they stop it from happening? If we want conference to go ahead, how much scope do we have to say no to accreditation?
Paul, where is there room to compromise? Nobody is arguing against physical security measures. But how do we compromise on accreditation? We’ll just have a /little/ bit of background checking? No. All it takes is one transphobic rozzer with access to the database and the lives of several people I care deeply about are potentially ruined. I don’t think it’s worth that risk when compared to the benefits, which are spurious at best.
Isn’t the existence of this whole article slightly strange? Conference has been asked for its views on accreditation which were expressed very clearly in Birmingham. Now FCC is asking for views from the party again? Just forward last years conference motion and the result on to Sussex Police – really no need for any debate at all? Is there?
Which bit if NO do the FCC not get?
We voted against this at conference and yet here we are again.
I am one of those affected by these procedures for personal security reasons and I am not prepared to be subjected to police checks in this way when for my own safety, a red flag appears against my name in accreditation checks that the police will use to deny me accreditation.
Let me explain. I have a red flag marker on my name because I have a harassment order against someone who is still trying to find out where I live to harass me further. The marker shows up on police checks but does not give details at the leve l of checks the police make for conference accreditation. The next level up does but this is not the one the police use when accrediting us. Therefore I get refused accreditation because of the marker despite the fact that it is there to protect me and not mark me as a danger or threat.
Can the FCC guarantee this won’t happen again? Of course not. It’s therefore safe to assume that I will once again be prevented from exercising my democratic right to attend conference as a party member.
How liberal
The arrogance here is astounding. FCC appear to be trying to ignore what was passed last autumn. The phrase, “gone native” would perhaps seem appropriate. Perhaps it’s time for FCC to have some new blood – things appear to be stale, and smelling quite badly.
To make his clear from a personal perspective, I will not attend conference whilst this intrusive security theatre is in force. As a liberal I find it offensive. As a transgender person, I refuse to associate with something that puts those, transgender or otherwise, who face threats to their personal safety should intrusive background checking be badly handled (and it will be).
I enjoyed the conferences I attended. Now it looks like I shall never attend another one, and never again be able to properly participate fully in this party. I know I’m not alone. I hope FCC are proud of themselves.
I want to comment about this bit, on disclosure of previous identities:
“West Sussex police have been clear that where this applies, individuals can apply under their current identity, and do not need to disclose their previous identity. They are familiar with dealing with this issue, and have ongoing dialogue with relevant communities locally about handling this issue.”
It is my direct experience that police forces are institutuionally incompetent when handling this sort of information, as is the Criminal Records Bureau. “Trust us not to mess this up” is no assurance at all. Trust is earned, and in this case nothing has been done to earn it.
I agree with Richard. The party gave its views at Conference last year.
I am tired of the weak arguments used by those who wish the party to overturn its fundamental beliefs. How exactly would accreditation have thwarted the 1984 Brighton bombing or the Norwegian gunman at a youth political event?
And I am a little worried Paul Barkers idea that “proper” liberals are people who will compromise on anything.
In there UK the public have for centuries believed that there exists presumption of innocence rather than guilt, and as Sarah has courageously highlighted some within the community will be directly or indirectly discriminated against by the Party following advice that is not necessarily applicable.
Some may come to the conclusion that the FCC, like many public organisations will continue to ‘consult’ until fatigue sets in, and people no longer bother to respond, then they can say, “well we have consulted our membership, and there have been no complaints”.
Perhaps all of this debate could resolved if we all had ID cards?
As someone who sometimes fails to take as much notice of these things as i should, thanks for all the comment above as it made me change my initial ambivalence into opposition for accreditation.
And i did think it went over the top at Gateshead with checking and removing my body spray. I know it was only Impulse but even I’m not impulsive enough to go spray it in anyone’s face! And if you’re in conference all day and off to fringe in the evening & your hotel isn’t that close, it is nice to be able to freshen up. What’s the betting that they’ll take my toothpaste or chewing gum off me in Brighton…
The reason more people dont complain about the checks is that we dont have any choice if we want to get in. All for keeping us safe but when i gatecrashed an event in the Hilton with one of our MPs no-one was bothered and accreditation wouldn’t have stopped that. If the bomber turns out to be a pretty young blonde i doubt accreditation
I must say, it’s extremely brave for FCC to be attempting, for a second year running, to be canvassing for an unpopular accreditation regime and in the process ignoring a clearly-worded conference motion on the subject, given that they are all up for re-election this year and are elected by conference representatives. Almost courageous, as Sir Humphrey would say.
sarah said ” “Trust us not to mess this up” is no assurance at all. ”
Exactly. Institutional incompetence, transphobia, accidental leaving of data on trains. Government institutions have proved their inabilities. Trust is hard to earn, easy to lose. And I for one don’t trust them.
I suppose what we’re seeing is the end of conference as the body that decides LD policy. LD parliamentarians seem to be ignoring it, now the FCC is. What happened to the Liberal Democrats?
I would prefer it if the police spent more time catching real criminals, than all this stuff. I simply don’t believe that the threat level warrants the number of police present at conference, let alone more checks and other expenses that have to be paid by someone. Crossing the road is likely to be far more dangerous than an accreditation-free conference.
If someone really wants to blow up Nick Clegg they can drive a truck full of explosives into his house. Ditto Vince, Danny, Ed and Michael. Or they can attend their surgeries and shoot them, or attack them with a knife. The last has happened, as we know: what next, the police say people attending surgeries should be accredited?
Would the contributors to this discussion stop tyring to make it a personal attack on FCC. All Andrew is doing is telling us what the police have said to them. I have written to the email address he suggested and madeclear my view that FCC should make plain to the police that FCC don’t have the right to override a conference decision and that whatever happens the conference arrangements should be in conformity with the views of conference. I strongly urge everyone to do just that and stop seeing intent where there is none. Tom McNally’s piece in this week’s Lib Dem views has a very important sentence about not jumping to conclusions and many of the writers above should heed it.
mickft, it’s not jumping to conclusions to assume that Andrew, and FCC in general, supports these pointless background checks when he and other FCC members spoke in favour of them in Birmingham last year.
“I suppose what we’re seeing is the end of conference as the body that decides LD policy. LD parliamentarians seem to be ignoring it, now the FCC is.”
I really hope not 🙁
I think it’s a very courageous thing for the FCC to offer up (this post I mean). They’ve tried to learn the lessons of last year and still present something they know everyone will hate.
Please everyone cut them some personal slack and focus on the issue at hand.
Does anyone have any evidence about the effectiveness of West Sussex Police’s data protection? It sounds like there are those who will always oppose this and then those who would be ‘happy’ (in big inverted commas) with bombproof safeguards.
If nothing else this is a really good start on the communication of this from the decision makers. As I said very courageous to do when you know the response will be hostile.
Oh and I love the suggestion that we’ll all get bored and there will be no more objections! You’ve clearly not experienced a disagreement at a local party meeting!
I think that in two ways FCC has been misguided here.
Firstly, not offering compromises, or potential compromises. For example, the automatic deletion of data, rather than an opt-out which is not offered to everyone.
Secondly, not establishing if any progress has been made since last year on the concerns raised, particularly on the trans issue. It seems like whatever we say this will go through, so whatever. I just think the FCC need to realise they are, at the end of the day, just members.
It is a totally pointless excercise.
I would pass accreditation with no problem whatsoever.
That however would not stop me making a bomb and taking it to conference, or running amok with an improvised weapon within the conference venue if I so chose. Nothing in my background would lead to anyone expecting this of me.
Vigilant physical security checks at conference venue, however unwelcome is a realistic means of improving the safety of all those attending. This ridiculous suggestion of acreditation is just a typical authoritarian response by the police and security forces to an unspecified and unknowable threat.
If a specific threat is supposed exists then the specific intelligence that leads to the supposition must also give information which would allow the security service to be vigilant at the venue regarding the threat.
An absolute no to accreditation.
And no I cannot be bothered emailing – it shows here as a members post, feel free to print it off and consider it in your meeting.
The Liberal Democrats are, above all, a free and democratic party. That is an absolute equal to ensuring the security of those attending our events, including Conference.
I have commented in many places that police accreditation is discriminatory and breaches that fundamental principle of democracy by deterring a group of people exercising their democratic right as members. It does so in a manner that discriminates against people on the grounds of gender identity.
Any party that does not tell the police to get stuffed and stop interfering in the workings of a political party loses the right to call itself liberal or democratic.
I do not blame Andrew personally for this; it is a committee decision. That decision is wrong and disrespectful of the expressed view of Conference last year, and in an election year it will be up to individual members of FCC (including Andrew) to explain which way they voted, and why. We do not have that information yet and Andrew has said he has not authored the article.
Accreditation is a system that would not have stopped the Brighton bomb, or the activities of the extremist nutter in Norway. It was used in Birmingham in a particularly ineffective manner that did not protect Liberal Democrat Ministers in fringe meetings outside the secure zone. Subsequently we have seen the BBC documentary that exposed the mindset of the security industry, and the justification for ever more extreme levels of policing disproportionate to a threat.
Do you believe a former police officer such as Ruwan in this debate? I do. It is my view (and I will submit it to FCC) that FCC should tell the police that the so-called “safeguards” offered are woefully inadequate and do not overcome the discrimination inherent in the process, and that their proposal is a direct attempt to meddle in our internal process and is totally unnecessary.
Just like Nick Clegg and others have told the securocrats to get stuffed over Theresa May’s plans for unnecessary email snooping, this Party should tell them to get stuffed over accreditation.
My point about 2 “sides”, not listening to each other seems to be confirmed. Reading this thread is like being in a meeting when people start shouting, its a s*** way to get anything done.
I do actually believe that compromise is a core liberal value because there are always different viewpoints. Theres too much certainty in this thread & not enough doubt.
I keep hearing the echo Ian Paisley bellowing ” Never, Never”.
Paul: What compromise position do you suggest?
Andy: I asked that and got no answer
Jennie: So you did! I suspect we won’t be the last people to ask the question and get no response…
Perhaps that’s not really a surprise, Andy, given that the only trick in Paul’s book appears to be the Lib Dem equivalent of Godwin’s Law: “YOU’RE NOT PROPER LIBERALS!!!!”
I’ve just tried commenting on Gareth Epps’ post about this accreditation proposal. I also wanted to object to his characterization of Lib Dem Voice editors as “censors” for pausing his comment above for moderation. Unfortunately both my comments on his site are “awaiting moderation”. 😉
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to improve membership cards so that they can be used to gain entry? Faffing around with accreditation seems to be designed to discourage people from attending.
Actually The view of Conference on this topic was far more nuanced than is suggested in the comments above. an amendment which said: “Conference rejects the current system of accreditation as it is discriminatory and has resulted in members being denied their constitutional right to attend Conference, and requests the Federal Conference Committee to refuse to operate it for future Conferences.” was rejected by Conference.
@lisa Harding – you have given no reason at all why you would be rejected apart from to assert it would be the case.
Where I think Andrew needs to give more information is on the consequences of ignoring police advice would be. If it is that there would be no insurance cover, which would mean no venue, then Conf Ctee should put a motion to Confernce making that explicit and asking Conf to choose between no accreditation and no Conference. .
Many others have eloquently stated the reasons for opposing the accreditation measures.
I will simply say this: The way to change how Federal Conference Committee handles these things is to change the committee.
I have been advised that the process of nominations for committee positions starts in July.
I intend to stand, not exclusively but partly because if this issue
Lon Won: you have actually only posted one comment on my blog, which I have posted.
I’ll save the censorship debate for another day (subject to them letting my comments through!).
Gareth: I posted two. But I’m continuing this conversation over on your blog now, subject to you letting my comments through…
Simon that comment about insurance was rebuted by Susan Gaszczak during the debate and she is someone who works in the conference organising business. But as my notes for my summation note you failed to notice what previous speakers to you had said in the debate so I guess you missed that.
@Nick Noble
“That however would not stop me making a bomb and taking it to conference, or running amok with an improvised weapon within the conference venue if I so chose. Nothing in my background would lead to anyone expecting this of me.”
Well, not until now… 😉
I’ve drafted my response to FCC and posted it online; I’d be grateful if people could vote for it on LibDig
Well I suppose as Liberals we are free to be paranoid, free to be suspicious, but if we want the Uk policing system to continue to be by consent, then we need to listen to the advice we receive. We have appointed Andrew to manage our conference and to do his utmost to keep us safe, so – listen to him.! You can’t (or shouldn’t) run any event without thinking through and minimising the risks.. – that is what is being done here. If we can’t run the conference in a way that the committee, which we appointed to run it, think is safe(having listened to all advice and opinion) then I don’t think I shall be going.
peter… who is “us”? White ablebodied middle aged middle class men hetero cis men? Or can ANYONE consider their safety? If so, please note that for some people the proposed system decreases their safety – and that’s part of what the argument is about.
Peter, it would minimise risks yet further if all delegates were to be cavity searched on entry. However, that would clearly be a step too far. As rational-minded people we should look at what security benefit we might gain from this accreditation process, see that there is no benefit to us, and reject it in face of the risks and challenges that it introduces.
I’ve listened to what Andrew has to say, and pointed out the flaws in his arguments above. Assuming that people who don’t accept that the police require these checks “haven’t thought it through” is patronising in the extreme.
I’m most concerned about how vulnerable the entry queues are.
At Newcastle there was a 200 yard line of delegates outside for an hour or so.
The target then becomes those waiting to enter the secure area.
The press and party elite have a fast-track entrance to avoid standing in such a vulnerable place, so they do not experience the same degree of vulnerability and fear as the grass roots who are forced to stand outside the citadel like sitting ducks.
If the elite had to stand in line they would insist upon a change in the security arrangements – the fast track is divisive, and creates resentment.
The point I raised about what credible evidence hasn’t been answered.
But let me put it another way. If there is credible evidence of such a threat then why in NOvember last year was there a widely advertised Liberal Democrat event – at which it was known in advance that Nick would be a speaker. And when I arrived at that event I walked in through main door and sat at the back of the hall without any check whatsoever on who I was or what I was doing. The event was Yorks & Humber regional conference. I wasn’t registered in advance and I just walked into the venue which had neither a policeman nor a member of the conference team checking on admissions. Admitedly I was sat opposite the registration desk at which was sat someone I knew but why is such a low level of security allowed at one event when just a few months earlier much more extreme measures had been required.
Andrew has at least posted here: but where are the other members of FCC with their views?
Answered by whom? This is a comment thread of, by, and for random people that want to object for the benefit of the peanut gallery. The other side of the debate isn’t here; Andrew Wiseman has made it fairly clear that he’s not going to argue the point in this thread.
That’s why I reasked it. Why did we need all that security at Birmingham and then nothing 2 months later when the most likely target was present at both. If the history of terrorism teaches us anything then it is that the soft targets will always be more preferable.
Silly. Security theatre to justify the police claiming more control over our life.
What is the difference between the main federal conference and spring conference? Could we not, when booking, ask venues whether they have police like Brighton and Birmingham? Would Gateshead be the same?
I’ll pass the arrangements, but I have to say I am increasingly wondering why I bother with conference. This is another small kick in the teeth for activists who are watching the party elite destroy the good will of the party base. I hope Andrew Wiseman will acknowledge that the timing and short response interval is incredibly bad: it looks like an attempt to hide this. I don’t think it is, but it looks bad.
Seriously fight back hard. Reduce the conference to a weekend like Spring conference if that is what is required. Find a venue that doesn’t want this ridiculous approach. Call the bluff of the police: can you imagine them cancelling the party conference of a governing party?
Mind you there is a possible compromise: No member needs accreditation (look at Gateshead etc), so just accredit these extra media, exhibitors, etc who are the problem.
I’ll just point out that the venue needs to be selected two or three years in advance. It takes that long.
Furthermore, there are about ten venues in the UK which can host a conference of this size.
I didn’t manage to get to Gateshead mainly due to the impractibility of the journey on crutches with only one weightbearing leg.Had Conference been now then I probably could have managed it. But there’s no way even now that I could stand anywhere near that long in a queue with a leg in plaster and on crutches. That must be the same for a number of other potential attendees.
If everyone has to use the same entrance, regardless of who they are, and wait the same amount of time, then people might think again.
Anybody with this kind of problem should contact the conference office as soon as they can. Arrangements can be made to handle issues like this, for everybody who tells the office that they have a problem. Lots of people come to conference with mobility issues, and substantial time and money is spent on making conference accessible to them.
Nothing can be done for people who don’t tell the conference office.
Andrew, unfortunately security overrides accessibility for people with accessibility needs. My partner is disabled – she can walk for very short distances, but needs a wheelchair most of the time. At previous conferences, she has taken taxis to the conference venue, then used the electric scooters provided (for which we should be grateful) by the Conference stewards inside the venue. Since the new security arrangements were put in place, taxis aren’t allowed to drop off near the Conference, so she can’t get within walking distance of the entrance. The stewards couldn’t get the scooters far enough out, and she couldn’t get close enough, to meet up – and if she isn’t in her chair, she has to queue on foot which is physically impossible.
Just as well her experience with police handling of CRB checks has put her off coming to Conference really!
There was an issue with taxi access at Sheffield, but that was the unfortunate road layout as much as anything else. I’m fairly sure a solution was found either for Birmingham or Newcastle, although I don’t know what they did exactly.
Seems to me there is actually (some) room for compromise – I want to pick up Mike Pitt’s point above (though I’ll explain in a sec why I don’t think that would work) and also what Callum Leslie said.
Let’s first examine, though, the bare facts of the issue at hand, and separate the wood from the trees (I’m not going to comment on the “FCC overruling conference” point beyond saying that I found Simon McGrath’s point quite illuminating).
The reason – we’re told – that we need accreditation is that there might be a risk of someone who is determined enough to cause harm to us to get inside the secure zone. That’s the only possible scenario that accreditation can solve (leaving aside the dangers to us outside the secure zone etc, which having or not having accreditation won’t affect).
I’d guess that if we refuse to allow for accreditation to happen, the party will likely have to pay horrendous insurance premiums to top up the occupier’s liability insurance of the conference venue, because we would be acting contrary to police advice in not carrying out accreditation checks (blame the insurance companies for that one!). I don’t think Mike is right to suggest that the Police can stop us holding Conference (Andrew Wiseman*’s original post clearly states that the police accepts that it’s up to the party, not the police, to decide who attends).
So we need to agree a way for the police to be happy that conference can go ahead with minimum risk – and reducing the corresponding insurance premium costs. It’s about balance and – yes – compromise.
The solution that Mike suggests wouldn’t work for the reasons that Andrew* mentions in the OP – anyone could join the party for £12 and then register to attend as a member. Conference reps have to be elected by their local party (though I know for a fact that the level of contest varies widely between different parties), so hopefully they aren’t likely to be wanting to cause us harm (full disclosure: I’m currently one). Same goes for members of party staff (ditto). But having a blanket rule whereby conference reps/staff get automatically approved smacks of elitism to me – and wouldn’t necesarily address the potential security risks.
Surely the only people who could realistically cause a threat are first-time delegates (and assorted media/exhibitors/etc)? The Party already holds the data on whether someone’s attended before, and when (I assume) – otherwise how could it offer a first-time delegates’ discount? We trust the party to hold this data already, right?
So here’s a plan – give automatic accreditation to every member who’s previously attended conference (or, perhaps, attended it in the last 2 years – i.e. those who have already gone through the accreditation process), and to first-time members who the FCC (not the police) is happy are unlikely to pose a threat, even though they might get flagged up by the police for whatever reason (e.g. people attending for the first time under a new identity – surely we trust the FCC to handle such things more delicately than the police would?), and subject everyone else (including first-time conference reps, first-time staff, all media and all exhibitors) to the accreditation process.
Yes, that could still put off some new members from attending (but in the system I’m suggesting, they could explain why they should be given automatic accreditation by FCC if they’re worried about having their details checked by the police). Yes, if there are different rules for accreditation for spring/autumn that might cause problems – but I would hope not unsurmountable ones.
And, by the way, I fully agree with Callum Leslie that we need to make sure the police deletes the records of accredited people automatically rather than through an opt-in (out?) system. I’m happy for the party to hold the data – assuming it’s done as securely as possible – but less so for the police. And I’m not persuaded about this idea of an accreditation database that’s shared between the parties. Just because someone doesn’t want to cause one party harm doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to for another party (or, perhaps more realistically, vice versa – if someone is flagged up as someone who wants to harm the Tories/Labour, should they be automatically excluded from our conference?).
Right, off to write that email to FCC now…
[*or whoever the mysterious author of the OP is!]
A. The request for views
1. The timing of Andrew Wiseman’s request on Liberal Democrat Voice
I have deliberately waited before replying to allow myself to give a calm and considered response but I find that my astonishment at FCC’s course of action has only increased. FCC have known since the conference in Birmingham in September 2011 that there would be a problem. To await until meeting the police in March 2012 and then to invite comments on 14th April giving members one week to respond is ridiculous. We would not hesitate to condemn any government department or agency which behaved like that.
2. The wording of Andrew Wiseman’s request on Liberal Democrat Voice
Andrew begins by mentioning “widely differing views within the party” and ends by saying “strong views on both sides”. He finally manages to mention the conference resolution which he says FCC “has taken into account”. FCC appears to have developed a new way of deciding things in the Liberal Democrats. Conference resolutions (by the way, it is a resolution because it was resolved, not merely a motion which was moved) can be ignored and decisions will be taken by the committee itself. Consulting those members who happen to read LDV is not a democratic process as LDV has no place in our party’s constitution and nobody elects its readers.
B. The substance of the argument
1. The question of members providing personal data
Others have argued this point endlessly and the party’s tradition is well known. The Birmingham resolution specifically stated:
“Conference therefore condemns the system of police accreditation adopted for this conference which requires party members to disclose personal data to the police”
2. The selection of representatives at conference: constitutional point
Article 6.3 of the party’s constitution provides:
“Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party
concerned…”
Nowhere in the constitution or the federal conference standing orders is there any provision for officials of the party to interfere with that process. I addressed this point when summing up the debate in Birmingham which adopted the resolution which includes the following:
“Conference therefore calls upon:
…
2) The Federal Conference Committee to negotiate security arrangements for future conferences which protect the privacy of members’ personal data and which respect the party’s constitution and internal democracy.” [My emphasis]
Nevertheless FCC proposes to ignore conference’s decision and is proposing exactly the same unconstitutional powers for the three wise men, President, Chair of FCC and Chief Executive. If FCC considered that such powers should exist they could have proposed a constitutional amendment at Gateshead but they did not do so. Andrew’s request states “The final decision on accreditation rests with the party, not with the police (and the police accept this).” This misses the point. As a democratic party we cannot agree to any outside body OR federal officers interfering with the election of representatives by local parties. How could a party conference hold officers to account effectively if those same officers could decide who may attend ?
3. The selection of representatives at conference: practical point
Andrew also says that the proposed three wise men “will review the reasons for suggested declining accreditation, and the information on which it is based (where privacy laws permit)” and “will only consider not accrediting a member of the party if they believe there is very strong evidence that that individual may pose a serious security threat to the conference”. How is it possible to review information which the police or security services do not divulge ? This is exactly the problem with control orders, that the security services would not present evidence to a court which they believe would compromise their methods and their agents.
4. Spurious security arguments
Andrew says the police cited the Brighton bombing. The bomb was planted before the Conservative conference began and would now be found by the security searches of buildings conducted in advance of conference. Even if not found, accreditation would not have prevented the bombing. Apparently the police also cited Breivik’s attack in Norway. Breivik was not accredited. Nobody carrying the armament Breivik took on to the island would get through physical security. Did the police really have no better arguments for accreditation ?
5. The insurance risk
This argument was also presented last year. We know that last year the police recommended not accrediting one member and that the three wise men overruled the recommendation. What was the impact on our insurance ? None. What then is the point of accreditation if the party’s officers can overrule it ?
C. Conclusion
The FCC’s task now is to obey the party conference and not to seek views on what has already been settled. However, this is not just a question of procedural incompetence (in both senses of the word). The police proposal and the FCC’s proposed acquiescence flies in the face of our party’s most fundamental and cherished principles. The FCC’s attempt to ignore a Federal Conference decision undermines our constitution, our contract with each other as members of a party and our trust in our elected officers. As a party our devotion to liberty and our commitment to our internal democracy lie at the heart of what makes us different and valuable to our country and our voters. We throw these away at our peril and , if we do, then in a small way but of fundamental importance, the terrorists have won.
I’ve read the comments above with interest, as I am the only member of FCC to speak, vote and campaign consistently against police vetting for those people elected by their peers to represent local parties at Conference.
Many of us opposed to vetting feel strongly about this, yet people on the other side of the argument clearly think we eventually will give up and go away!
Conference made a clear decision. FCC lost the argument. If this was another matter, or indeed the opposite had happened, David Grace would not be permitted to re-submit his motion, to ask Conference to over turn the decision made at a previous Conference, nor would someone be allowed to re-open the matter. FCC regularly doesn’t accept/select motions for debate because the topic has recently been debated and a decision has been made. I am at a lost to see why this decision is any different. Putting a thin wash of ‘consultation’ looks, at best, ill-conceived.
Without meaning to preach, FCC collectively needs to demonstrate more respect for our fellow Lib Dems and our constituency, Conference.
Have just sent my response, and posted it here: http://oneexwidow.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lib-dem-conferance-police-accreditation.html
Just sent my response and posted it here:
http://thepotterblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/my-email-to-fcc-on-conference.html
Federal Conference Committee met on Monday to consider the question of conference security.
As we said in our article of 14th April 2012, the police have requested that we adopt a similar system of accreditation for conference that was used for Birmingham last Autumn.
That system would involve conference attendees submitting certain pieces of information at the time of registration, such as their past addresses and passport number. That information would be used to assess whether the person registering is who they say they are and whether they pose a serious security threat to conference. If so, the person concerned would not be accredited. The vast majority, however, would be. Those who were accredited for attendance in Birmingham would be recognised by the system, unless they had asked for their data from last time to be deleted, and minimal checks would be required.
As before, safeguards would be put in place were accreditation to be adopted. These include an appeals procedure whereby the final decision as to whether someone could attend conference or not would be taken by the Party and not the police. It would also include the facility for the data to be deleted in respect of anyone who wanted it. What data remained would be held on a standalone system, not linked to the main police computer system. People who have changed identity would be able to apply for accreditation under their current identity and would not need to reveal their former one.
The FCC recognises that accreditation is highly controversial within the Party. A motion was submitted about it to Birmingham Conference and, whilst an amendment that would have refused to adopt accreditation in the future failed, conference did ‘condemn’ the system that was in use at that time.
When we called for views on the accreditation proposal for Brighton, many responses were received. We would like to thank everyone who took the time and trouble to send us their opinions. Many were in favour of accreditation but many were vehemently opposed to it.
At our meeting on Monday, representatives of LGBT+ attended to tell us about the particular problems with accreditation that face people with previous identities. We are very grateful for the time they took to do that.
Senior members of Party staff also attended. Over the past two weeks, they have talked extensively to the Party insurers and to staff at the conference venue in Brighton.
Following careful consideration, FCC does not think that the case for accreditation of party members is presently made out, but recognises that there are other complex issues around it that need to be addressed. We are committed to holding conference without it if we possibly can.
We have therefore decided to delay opening registration for Party members (and only Party members) whilst further negotiation takes place with the police, other Party Committees, the owners of the conference venue and our insurers. If we possibly can avoid using accreditation though, we will. We will provide further information as soon as we are able to do so.
I’d like to thank Andrew and other FCC members for inviting myself and two other members of the LGBT+ exec along on Monday in order to better explain our concerns. I think it was a very useful exercise.
Many thanks, Andrew, for the update. Also thanks to Sarah and colleagues for attending and putting the relevant important points forward.
Andrew – how many were in favour, and how many against, please?
Shouldn’t Andrew’s post have been a separate new blog post? Few people will see it here.