The balance between security and privacy again came into sharp focus yesterday when emergency legislation was brought forward requiring internet and telephone providers to retain records of our calls and emails.
For me, the broad agreement between the three main parties on what can sometimes be a really divisive issue was striking.
The legislation is needed to protect us all – including those who oppose it because they say it will invade people’s privacy.
The powers it covers are not new but our ability to use them has been lost due to a recent judgement by the European Court of Justice on an European Union-wide directive. However, the British law which was affected was a narrower, more proportionate and regulated provision for data retention and investigatory powers.
Under the new data retention and investigation powers bill our police and security services will be able to continue to access data to help keep us safe – from terrorists, from organised crime, from paedophiles.
It will save some lives and stop others from being shattered, be it a mum who has lost a leg in a terrorist bomb attack, or a child who has been abused.
I make no apologies for using such emotive language, because I know as a member of parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee that these are just the kind of scenarios prevented by these existing powers.
Of course, people do not hear about these threats at the time, but the terrorist plots and crimes that do succeed should be warning enough of the dangers if we do not act now.
These powers are used in 95 per cent of serious and organised crime prosecutions.
They were used in investigating some of the 19,000 reports of child abuse received last year by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency.
They enabled police to find out about the attempted terrorist attack at Glasgow airport in 2007. And they enabled our security services to check who the murderers of Lee Rigby had contacted to ensure no further attacks were planned.
The powers enable data to be gathered about the time of phone calls and emails, the location from which they were made and sent, and the identity of the sender and recipient.
But this data is only accessed when there is a suspicion it could relate to terrorist or criminal activity.
The content can only be looked at further when a legal intercept is approved and a warrant signed by either the foreign secretary or the home secretary.
It is simply wrong to think the authorities routinely access all of our private correspondence on a whim, or just to be nosy, as is implied by some of the headlines.
Would any of those who claim this invades their privacy complain if their life was saved by these vital powers?
The legislation governing them is a stop-gap which will expire in 2016. In the meantime parliament will have the chance to scrutinise the issue in more detail, and there will be new safeguards in place.
Labour has helped to secure an independent review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which governs data access and retention to ensure it keeps pace with technological advances.
There will be annual transparency reports on the use of the powers and a new privacy and civil liberties board akin to that in the United States will be set up to ensure that these considerations are taken on board when government policy on counter-terrorism is drafted.
I share some of the concerns raised about the speed with which the government is asking us to turn around this legislation. But terrorists and serious criminals will wait for nothing or no one in their plans to do us harm. So the alternative of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies being unable to obtain vital and sometimes life-saving information would be disastrous.
When I was the counter-terrorism minister at the time of the 7/7 bombings I saw for myself the trauma caused to innocent people and their families.
I share the views of most people in our country that our agencies must have the power to disrupt plots and bring the perpetrators to justice – while at all times acting lawfully, proportionately and in accordance with human rights.
It is a difficult balance, but one which must be struck.
———————————
Hazel Blears MP is a former counter-terrorism minister and sits on parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee
———————————
Photo: Phil Campbell
If it stops another 7/7 bombings then such legislation is worth it as we live in difficult times. The advantages outweigh the concerns expressed as crooks,murderers and low life don’t have rules to play by.
.. oh they have rules alright – just not commonly accepted as being the status quo, thank God. But that doesn’t give anyone in a position of [Authority and Power] a God-given Right to trample all over Jo Public’s Human Rights, or declare unilaterally, indictments on other, so-called ‘low-life’, however despicable they may seem at the time of going to press: innocent until proven guilty and Judge Not less Ye be Judged spring to mind. The LAWS are in place for each and every person walking on the Planet – no exceptions! these are Universal laws which have been passed down through the eons since Moses was a lad [and before] which supersede any man-made Laws.
But I agree with Hazel Blears, a balance must be [struck].
Good Luck, Hazel, we are counting on you guys at Labour, don’t let us down
Its a balancing act between how much ‘politicians’ let Jo Public know about [?]. Jo Public has the Right to know all the [gory] plots and -007-security info’ details; however despicable they may be.
As noble as it may seem t be protectionist, dare I say ‘mothering’? we can’t keep kids [and adults] in a protected cage forever. Hiding the realities of war and terrorism may seem to be in the Public’s best interests – says who?
rather to tell the truth as it is, than giving us the news after-the-fact, as PM Clement Atlee did in September 1939 that … “This country is now at War with Germany” … that was a shocker.
The Jo Public in United Kingdom is tougher than one imagines, we can take the truth, but not lies.
errata the last post: it was of course Nevill Chamberlain not Clemmie whose voice haunts – oh thank God for a decent Classical education at Cambridge – I wish [!]