Dear Nick...An Open Letter on Closed Material Procedures

Dear Nick,

You don't know me but obviously I know you. I'm writing to you about the Justice and Security Bill and its provisions for Closed Material Procedures (or Secret Courts, as they have become known). In particular, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your reported refusal to meet Jo Shaw and Martin Tod to discuss the party's (and the Government's) approach to the bill. But first, for the sake of background, a bit about me.

I'm a relative newbie having (re)joined the party in 2010 (post-election). Since then, I've gradually got more involved within the blogosphere, the local party and attending conference. Conference was a great experience, in particular the opportunity to attend and vote in the debates that make our party policy. Something which we are, justly, proud and which the party makes much of when "marketing" conference to the members.

I also really enjoyed the buzz of being with (relatively) like minded people throughout the week. Yes, we're a party with some profound disagreements on certain issues, but collectively we approach things from a broadly similar, liberal, mindset. Our party democracy facilitates honest, civilised and respectful debate - even on the most contentious of issues, things remain (for the most part) courteous. It may not be perfect, but it's better than policy being decided behind closed doors and fed down to the grassroots.

I'm proud of a lot of what we are doing in Government. I know we can't do nearly as much as we would like, and I know we have to swallow some pretty unpalatable things. I'm a realist but I supported the decision to join the coalition and I remain a supporter of it. We should be shouting from the rooftop about the raising of the Personal Allowance, implementing the Pupil Premium, stopping Child Detention and raising Capital Gains Tax, amongst other things. Trumpeting our achievements, not just the things we've stopped.

I was also proud of you, personally, when you stood up and accepted Leveson's central proposals in direct opposition to the Prime Minister. And when you accepted the Joint Committee's recommendations that the Draft Data Communications Bill needed a substantial rethink. And when you made a stand on Drugs and accepted the need for a Royal Commission and to look at alternatives to the current position.

These were bold and welcome moves. Moves that seemed to suggest you were seeking  to (re)claim the Liberal ground for us. To carve out a niche that isn't about chasing votes to the Left or to the Right. To be honest, I had hoped these would be followed with some pronouncements on the Justice and Security Bill. Sadly, though, that has not been the case...

Few things unite us more, as a party, than Civil Liberties. Few things differentiate us more from Labour - and increasingly - the Tories than Civil Liberties. For all the fine words in their manifesto, I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning to wonder how many of the coalition's achievements in this area would have been achieved without us in the Government.

I am, it has to be said, a loyalist. In political life, and life in general, I dislike dissension, aggression and conflict. But that is not to say that, when I feel strongly about things, I won't take a stand. And that brings me to the subject of this letter.

When I first read the text of the Autumn Conference Motion F41 "No Government Above the Law". I was reluctant to support it, given that it would - should - tie our Parliamentarian's hands. But, the amendment lacked, in my judgement, sufficient safeguards against the use of CMPs in circumstances conference, the party or even (perhaps) the current Government wouldn't deem appropriate.

Protection of Civil Liberties and Open Justice are at the root of an free and fair society. They are at the core of Liberal principles. The Justice and Security Bill strikes at the very heart of these principles. Just look at your Membership Card: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community..."

So much for the issue - but what of your response? After all, the motion was selected by FPC, in accordance with the constitution of the party. The amendment was debated (supported exclusively on the floor by Parliamentarians) and rejected overwhelmingly. The unamended motion was similarly passed overwhelmingly. As such, it is Party Policy to oppose Section II of the Bill.

Now, I appreciate that you can't stop everything. I know you only have some many cards that you can play. But you have a mandate from the party to reject this bill, and you aren't bound to it by the coalition agreement. I understand you must have invested some political capital in this: and that wholesale withdrawal at this stage would be embarrassing. (This, in itself, begs the question: how did you think the party would react when this was first mooted in the Quad, in Cabinet and amongst our MPs?)

As things stand, I am minded to support a further motion at Spring Conference and, if need me, at a Special Conference. Much depends on what you do next, and whether you respond to the party's obvious concerns in any way. I urge you, at the very least, to meet Jo and Martin to discuss the issue.

To finish, I want to quote you this:

"We will be strong in defence of Freedom. [We] believe that the British state has become too authoritarian [...] We will restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain's tradition of freedom and fairness."

Our manifesto? No... The Coalition's own "Programme for Government".

Yours, Sincerely,

Andrew Brown

The Surveilance Cart and the Policing Horse

People who know me will know I'm reasonably relaxed about my personal info... I'm happy for all sorts of companies and organisations to have my details, and to keep information about me. I tend to be pretty trusting about the way such organisations will treat my data - relying, it must be said, on the proper implantation of the Data Protection Act. Like many people, I'll opt out of spam and "third party" offers but that's pretty much it.

Like many people, too, I live much of my life online. Facebook, Twitter, Google all have large amounts of information about me. You only need to Google my username to find my electronic fingerprints all over it!

I take, I think, sensible precautions when purchasing things on the Internet, seeking to deal with reputable sites and using secure payment methods but other than that, my approach is basically a pragmatic one.

Indeed, pragmatism and a desire to explore both sides of any given issue so often stymies my blogging on big topics. So often an issue arises about which I will chew the cud before getting to a point of even considering a blog - by which point the moment will have passed. Not so this time.

You may wonder where this is going. Am I about to declare myself in favour of the State being able to track email and social media usage? Do I believe that such a step is vital for the Nation's security? Does Theresa May really need to be able to see who I've been e-mailing?

No, No and, unsurprisingly, No.

Whilst I don't believe I have anything to hide or anyone to hide it from, that doesn't mean to say I don't want privacy... Whilst I want security and protection from terrorists and organised crime, I want security and protection for all in their everyday online lives.

This means that there needs to be checks and balances in place before this sort of information is obtained and accessed. Warrants should be sought - and granted - before Police or the Security Services can carry out such surveillance. If there is the routine availability of detailed information, Terrorists and Criminals will find ways to circumvent the system - if there isn't, they may trust to other means to avoid coming to the attention of the authorities. 

Detection should come first. Due process should then be followed. Surveillance should be subject to the authority of the courts. The routine obtaining and storage of detailed records on the off-chance they may be required - or, worse, mined for information - is putting the surveillance cart before the policing horse.

The issue, which has come to the fore today due to intended (but unpublished) legislation, has caused much furore amongst fellow Lib Dems. Rightly so, given that Civil Liberties are central to our ideology. Here are  a couple of excerpts from the Preamble:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community...

We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals...

Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government...

Lynne Featherstone sent an e-mail to party members today on the subject of the proposed legislation - and cited some of the Liberal achievements of this government:

We’ve scrapped ID cards, ended child detention for immigration purposes, stopped indefinite retention of innocent peoples’ DNA, restored the right to protest in Parliament Square, scrapped control orders and ended 28-day detention without charge – to name but a few!

Security is a big issue, and important. But in a democracy the wishes of those who seek to guarantee those securities must be tempered by the rights of the masses. Liberal Democrat MPs and Ministers must ensure that these measures do not turn the exceptional into the normal. An internal briefing document - widely leaked today - seeks to contrast this government with some of the measures promoted by the previous Labour government. It is right to do so, but care needs to be taken to avoid falling into the same traps.

Andrew

Fellow Lib Dem bloggers, Alex and Caron, have also contributed on this topic - reinforcing the Liberal Democrat policy on the matter in a measured and calm approach to the topic. Lib Dem policy on the matter - made at Conference just a few weeks ago - can be found in section 5 of this document.