Brian Paddick writes on efforts to protect our civil liberties

Today the Investigatory Powers Bill overcame its final Parliamentary hurdle before becoming law. In the end the issue that held it up for a while was press regulation, not the powers of the state to intrude into our privacy.

In line with party policy, agreed at Lib Dem conference, we tabled dozens of amendments on significant issues that went to the very heart of the bill – while trivial Labour and Government amendments simply tinkered around the edges. Despite the Government’s best efforts to close down the debate, we fought hard and achieved close and careful line-by-line scrutiny of the bill in the House of Lords – something we were not given the opportunity to do in the Commons.

We were faced with an uphill struggle from day one, when Andy Burnham, Labour’s then shadow Home Secretary, declared that the Labour party would not oppose the Bill, including some of the most intrusive measures ever proposed by a western democracy. After that, it was obvious that the Bill would eventually pass but not before we had made the Liberal Democrat position crystal clear.

Whilst we were unable to achieve substantial change because of Labour’s capitulation, we were able improve the bill by insisting on consistency of approach, clarity of oversight and preventing broad drafting that has enabled previous legislation to be used in ways parliament never intended.

Some of the measures we fought tooth and nail to have removed from the Bill, such as requiring Internet Service Providers to keep a record of everyone’s web histories for 12 months so they can be handed over to the police on request without a warrant. The Security Services, our primary defence against terrorist attack, said that they did not need these so-called ‘Internet Connection Records’ but still neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Party would help us protect our civil liberties. We came under sustained attack from all sides for opposing this and other unnecessary and disproportionate intrusions into innocent people’s privacy, attacks from people who, to be quite frank, clearly demonstrated that they did not understand what was a technologically complex Bill.

As I said in the chamber, I am a lousy politician. I cannot stand up and say things that I do not believe just because they are party policy. If I honestly thought this Bill was the best way to keep us safe as a country, I would have backed it and I know the party would to, but the simple fact is, some of it will not work and other parts will be counter-productive.

This Act leaves us less free and in some ways, less safe, playing into the hands of the terrorists who despise our freedom and want to take it from us. We forced the Tories and Labour to vote, to make it clear that only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to defend our civil liberties. We forced the Government to state, on the record, what their intentions were and therefore what Parliament’s intentions were, in passing this legislation. This might not seem like much now but it will be key when these laws are challenged in the Courts, as no doubt they will.

In the newspapers, the newly appointed Labour Shadow Home Secretary called the Bill “draconian” and vowed to amend it. Meanwhile in the House of Lords, the Labour frontbench supported the government and Labour peers followed the Tories through the division lobbies to prevent our necessary and important amendments. Is it any wonder people are saying that it is the Liberal Democrats who are the real opposition to this Tory Government and its dreadful legislation?

* 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. He is joint President of LGBT+ Lib Dems.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.
Advert

4 Comments

  • Katharine Pindar 16th Nov '16 - 7:16pm

    Thank you, Brian and colleagues, for your valiant efforts to protect our civil liberties, and for fully informing us about what you fought for, the forces ranged against you, and what you could and could not achieve. You certainly stand out as radical Liberals of whom we can be proud, and we must all try to continue your battle by rigorous scrutiny of the developing issues.

  • It’s sad that this didn’t get the attention it deserves, with most people distracted by Brexit and the US elections. Thank you Brian and other Lib Dem peers for your valiant efforts to temper these shockingly illiberal measures. Broad swathes of Government will now have unprecedented ability to pry into our lives with minimal oversight, treating us as subjects rather than citizens.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 16th Nov '16 - 10:46pm

    Brian Paddick , one of the best our party has, your participation in this is much appreciated ,as with your input into anonymity before charge , the progress of which I wonder about, and would very much welcome updates.

  • Ronald Murray 17th Nov '16 - 11:55am

    Agree fully Brian that this is not needed, as a youngster I served in the Intelligence Corps horrified at this legislation. Sadly I believe only the SNP voted with us against the act.
    THe Labour Party have become a disgrace unable to sort themselves out and seem to have little regard for civil liberty their founders will be spinning intheir graves.

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 AvatarJoseph Bourke 4th Apr - 3:28pm
    Peter Wrigley is sounding like a bible belt preacher when he writes "there is no justification for the present vast industry to be maintained at...
  • User AvatarJames Fowler 4th Apr - 2:50pm
    @TCO. Very much agreed. 1. No point going after 'Blue Labour' or 'Red Tories'. We never had them anyway and persuading them that we were...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 4th Apr - 2:29pm
    Peter Martin, I agree that productivity determines international competitiveness and the terms of trade i.e. the volume of imports that can be acquired in exchange...
  • User AvatarKit Ingoldby 4th Apr - 2:21pm
    If you want to end the 'myth' that Liberals aren't patriotic, how about actually trying to be patriotic? Try pushing for the interests of the...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 4th Apr - 2:05pm
    Yes, Chris, except he was the inside forward partnering the great Billy Smith who was on the left wing. Billy came from Tantobie not far...
  • User AvatarJane Ann Liston 4th Apr - 2:01pm
    'Middle-class'? That has several possible meanings, as well as being 'loaded'. Please define what you mean, to avoid misunderstandings.
Mon 27th Apr 2020