The Conservatives and some elements of liberal opinion, have become obsessed with preaching against the ‘surveillance society’, warning against the establishment of a ‘police state’ and asserting that Labour in government has steadily eroded our civil liberties.
These propositions are founded on an utterly erroneous picture of how our society is changing, particularly in the development of data technology, the nature of criminal activity and the role of law. These changes should inform the way any government acts to preserve individual freedoms and to protect our society from criminality and antisocial behaviour.
Over the last 10 years the technology of data use has been revolutionised. Internet communication, GPS technology and increased use of the mobile phone now influence how we obtain money, buy and sell goods, travel and many other essentials.
Our activities are now stored in massive databases, run by both private and public organisations such as banks, health and travel organisations, telecommunications companies, and of course, for some people, the police and security organisations.
These changes are understandably contentious and problematic, and are often criticised as the ‘Big Brother’ society. But no government created this state of affairs, nor does government hold most of the data. We need a strong legal framework within which such data is collected, held and can be accessed, and then to enforce such rules effectively. The identity card system will help to achieve that and protect our liberties rather than weaken them.
Just as the technology has changed dramatically, so too has criminal organisation. People traffickers, drug dealers and terrorists are sophisticated global organisations using the most advanced technology.
It is the increased sophistication and global reach of these terrorist conspiracies which necessitate the judge-supervised control order regimes and extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention. These temporarily restrict the liberty of a (very small) number of people in order to protect the freedoms of the many.
The collection and use of intelligence is absolutely essential to defeat these criminals and the police and security organisations use many different means to collect such data under legal authority. These include biometric passports, photo driving licences and identity cards, telecommunications data, CCTV and automatic numberplate recognition. DNA records help to eliminate suspects and to solve violent crimes committed decades ago.
All of these measures and techniques rightly raise debate, often passionate, about the balance between the benefits for law enforcement and the possible threats to liberty. Different countries have reached different conclusions. But a pre-condition for meaningful discussion is acceptance of the reality of the criminal and terrorist threats we face. The Conservatives’ concerns are seriously undermined by their deliberate understatement of the threats which the country faces.
The fundamental legal basis underpinning these judgments has been transformed by Labour’s decision to enact the Human Rights Act, incorporating into UK law the European convention on human rights, signed in 1950 and hitherto supported by governments of all parties. This act strengthened individual human liberties, and underpinned legislation like the counter-terrorism acts and the Regulation of Investigatory Practice Act, which brought previously unregulated surveillance under control.
There is a good case for updating the European convention to meet modern conditions, but there is no case for the Conservative proposal of a new ‘bill of rights’, which would create confusion and seriously weaken the rule of law. A better approach would be to strengthen the relationship between parliament, government and the judiciary, to improve mutual understanding of the interpretation of the act.
The truth is that the Labour government has been able to strengthen civil liberties at a time of massive social change. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have no more to offer than misleading propaganda and doom-laden and exaggerated rhetoric.