Yesterday morning the United Kingdom awoke to news that emergency data surveillance legislation will be rushed through parliament in just a matter of days. Putting aside the substance of what is being proposed for a moment, the speed with which members of parliament are supposed to scrutinise and debate this legislation has rightly provoked consternation from human rights groups and MPs, including both Tom Watson and Diane Abbott.

As Tom Watson suggests, it stinks of an establishment stitch-up. The issues brought to light by Edward Snowden deserve proper public debate and parliamentary scrutiny. A deal done hastily behind closed doors risks undermining confidence in the security services and makes it look like the elite are not interested in listening to the public.

Turning to the substance, the proposed legislation will force phone and internet companies to retain data about who we call and send messages to, in addition to when and where from. This data will then be used by the government for surveillance. The data gathering is indiscriminate, meaning millions of innocent people can be spied on.

We are told this is nothing new and it is simply a response to a judgement by the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the court ruled that this kind of data collection is illegal and a breach of privacy. Previously ungoverned by any UK laws, the government is acting now in order to counter-act that judgement and entrench data surveillance in UK law.

There are many questions about data surveillance that need to be addressed through proper parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.

Can we trust the security services not to misuse these powers? There is a long history in Britain of intelligence agencies and police conducting inappropriate surveillance and clandestine operations, including spying on benign activism groups, the union movement, and even people like Doreen Lawrence.

Do these powers go too far in undermining privacy? A recent poll showed 88 percent of the public think it is important to maintain the privacy of their phone records. And yet this bill would allow mass collection of these same records.

Will these powers even be effective? The Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism thinkthank, says mass surveillance will backfire, further fuelling terrorism.

This is an important issue for Labour. Many have barely forgiven us for ID cards, 90-day detention, and control orders. We must show people that today’s Labour party can be trusted to responsibly balance privacy and security.

Whatever you think of the vote on Syria, it helped to show Labour had moved on from Iraq. We showed we are a different party now. As the most pressing civil liberties issue facing this country, data surveillance is the test for whether Labour has also moved on from some of the excesses of the war on terror at home.

Labour should stop the rush to mass surveillance and give MPs the time they need to scrutinise this legislation. We should make sure the public are able to digest what is being proposed and make up their minds. People are looking to Labour to see whether we really have changed our ways.

———————————

Andrew Noakes is chair of the Labour Campaign for Human Rights

———————————

Photo: CherryX