Labour's
Future |
|
|
SECURITY AND LIBERTY : FUTURE DIRECTIONS |
 |
|
In the areas of security and liberty many would argue
(and I agree) that there has been too much legislation. Despite
that, our political opponents intend to campaign on a raft of
radical measures, such as the creation of a new Bill of Rights and
elected police commissioners. These measures will certainly consume
a good deal of time and energy, probably unconstructively. Implementing proposals
Labour’s proposals have to start from our ambitions
in 1997. These were enormous and they were quickly implemented and
legislated – many in the first four years of the current Labour
Government.
Levels of crime and antisocial behaviour have
decreased significantly, as we strengthened the ability of the
police to fight crime. We established crime-fighting partnerships
between the police and other agencies, increased police numbers and
created Police Community Support Officers within a neighbourhood
policing strategy. We funded better technology, including CCTV and a
DNA database. We established new penalties, such as on-the-spot
fines and ASBOs and formed the Independent Police Complaints
Commission.
We enacted the Human Rights Act and subsequently
created a Supreme Court, breaking the link between the legislature
and the judiciary. Consequential legislation included the Regulation
of Investigatory Practices Act (RIPA) which for the first time
regulated previously unreported surveillance by public authorities.
We passed the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of
Information Act (now the source of so much difficulty for those,
like parliament, who didn’t think carefully enough about how to meet
its requirements). We also brought in legislation on transparency of
party political funding, which has shone a spotlight and brought
some order into very murky areas, though often at the cost of the
reputation of politics.
Most of this legislation was opposed by the
Conservatives and supported by the Liberal Democrats. Its overall
effect has been to strengthen the judiciary at the expense of the
legislature, to weaken the executive, to empower the media and to
discredit the political process. Despite these unwelcome
consequences, I continue to believe that the changes were right in
principle and should not be reversed. Shaking up the system
But all these measures shook up the existing system,
often substantially. In many cases, a new stable settlement still
has to be established. We now know how well our measures have
worked, or not, and understand the difficulties which remain. The
next parliament is the time to make whatever modifications are
necessary to create and secure that stability.
Moreover, society has evolved since 1997, most
significantly in the increasingly rapid march of technology and
increased globalisation; and of course the 9/11 attack and its
implications have dramatically changed our approach to our own
security.
So the next parliament needs to consolidate the new
constitutional relationships, establish consensus about the powers
of the police and security services and address the issues relating
to identity.
In the constitutional area, the implications of the
new Supreme Court and the way in which the Human Rights Act has
worked in practice require an open discussion between the judiciary
and the legislature, particularly to clarify where responsibilities
for security lie. We need a franker and more direct relationship
between courts and ministers. All levels of government need to be
far more open about the use of their powers, and the operation of
both RIPA and the FoI should be reviewed to create greater clarity
and less bureaucracy. Proposals for a new Bill of Rights have not
been thought through and would make an already confused situation
far worse. The security dilemmas
The dilemmas over police and security service powers
will always remain and are of course increased by the sharp security
threats under which we now live. On the one hand, we all want the
police to have the powers they need to apprehend criminals –
including terrorists who carry out mass murder – and, preferably, to
prevent such crimes from taking place. On the other hand, there will
always be concern that such powers might abuse those who are
innocent. The debate around these matters has of course been intense
since 9/11, during this government, but it will not go away.
The atrocities of 9/11 and then 7/7 demonstrated both
the terrorists’ ruthlessness and our vulnerability. The various
legislative responses, including the controversial control orders
and proposals for 90-day pre-charge detention, were intended to
address these very real threats in a proportionate way under
judicial overview. It would have been best (as I promised in 2006)
to consolidate current counter-terrorist legislation (including that
relating to Northern Ireland) with a comprehensive new Act. This
would respect international commitments and remove some aspects of
existing legislation which have caused concern, such as the over-use
by police of their counter-terrorist powers to stop and search, or
to constrain free movement. The partisan and incoherent 42-day
proposal in 2007 replaced the all-embracing review which was
necessary and should have taken place in this parliament, but the
need remains.
In most local communities, effective neighbourhood
policing has reduced both crime and fear of crime, and there is no
good case for reducing the ability of crime reduction partnerships
to use techniques such as ASBOs and the extension of CCTV to cut
crime and antisocial behaviour. Partnership working across the
country still needs to be improved, supported by a stronger police
focus upon the front line.
The police also need to strengthen their capacity to
deal with serious and organised crime, such as people trafficking
and drug dealing. These remain a major threat to the security of
many communities and stimulate gun and knife crime. Effective
intelligence, collected within the proper legal safeguards, remains
absolutely essential to combat the criminal gangs’ intentions and
practices, as is better international cooperation, particularly
across the E U. Identity databases
The controversy about identity cards has been
politically potent. However, the debate has been beset by misleading
and even duplicitous arguments.
The truth is that technological change means that
massive identity databases already exist. An immense range of data
about almost everyone has been collected by a large range of public
and private organisations. This data includes information on
banking, pensions and benefits, health, travel and employment
records, and of course the records held by the police and security
organisations.
The operation of these databases determines some
pretty fundamental practical questions about the ways in which we
live. On top of that, there is an understandable constant public
demand to establish more databases to strengthen protection, for
example against sex attacks on children. Moreover, the ability to
share data remains an important weapon both in fighting crime and in
addressing other social problems. As all this expands rapidly, the government needs to establish a coherent data regime which places the individual at the centre, with the practical right to see the data which is held upon them and correct it if necessary. They should also be able to see who made any changes (and when they were made) to
the data which is stored, and to give
permission for the sharing of any data which is held.
We should aim for simplification and above all
transparency, we should have a frank dialogue with the Information
Commissioner and others with concerns, and we should be prepared to
amend the CRB, identity register and data protection legislation as
needed to meet those concerns.
So, in conclusion, Labour should reject proposals for
further radical change in the areas of security and liberty. Our
priorities should be to put the new constitutional judicial system
on a sound footing; to consolidate and revise existing
counter-terror legislation; to continue reducing crime through more
modern policing (including a more rational structure of police
forces and more consistent partnership working); and to revise our
identity and data protection legislation to put the rights of the
individual at the centre.
I believe that our fourth term radical priorities
should be to meet the challenges which we have put in the ‘too
difficult’ box in our first three terms. That means creating a fair
system of prisons and probation which is designed to reduce
re-offending; completing democratic constitutional change by
strengthening the role of parliament (including electoral reform and
fixed-term parliaments); finishing reform of the Lords; creating an
accepted and open system of funding party politics; and restoring
the balance between national and local government. It is now time to address this major agenda and create sustainable change. It is a programme for a fourth term Labour government. |
|