The debate nobody wants

Richard Norton-Taylor

Crime, law and order, asylum seekers and immigration are at the forefront of the election campaign. Yet politicians shy away from the reverse side of the coin - the protection of civil liberties. Few backbenchers, with the exception of Liberal Democrats, appear alert to the danger of the erosion of our civil liberties.

Despite pledges made in opposition, Jack Straw, the home secretary, limited the right to trial by jury. The long-awaited Freedom of Information Act was heavily watered down. The Human Rights Act gives individuals more scope to challenge public authorities in the courts. But it also leaves judges with wide discretion on how to interpret it. This week, a high court judge ruled that the Official Secrets Act was compatible with the Human Rights Act, even though it imposes a blanket ban preventing serving or former members of the security and intelligence agencies from exposing serious crime. MPs from all parties shy away from any debate about "national security" and the problem of scrutinising the least accountable and most intrusive of government agencies.

Why should they be talking about it? Civil liberties are at the heart of a free and open society, even more precious when a government has a large majority in parliament. The Terrorism Act for the first time gives the government discretionary powers to proscribe foreign-based organisations, to criminalise those resisting tyranny abroad. It makes it a criminal offence to declare support even for the Kurdistan Workers Party (the PKK) which is backed by thousands of people in Britain. It threatens to alienate ethnic minorities and end Britain's 150-year record as a haven for refugees.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) gives the police and security services the power to monitor email addresses sent and received by individuals without any warrant. More and more personal information is being collected and exchanged between police and national security agencies across the EU.

What could be done? Reform the Official Secrets Act by a strict definition of "national security", and set up a credible independent scrutiny body for the security services. Narrow exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. More effective scrutiny over those agencies, including GCHQ and unaccountable EU committees, in control of increasingly intrusive technology. Acts of terrorism should be treated as crimes, without the need for special laws. Stricter criteria to prevent opt-outs from jury service.

18 May 2001 The Guardian