Intrusive, expensive, ineffective: that's Labour's surveillance state

Tories promise to step back from the Big Brother society

By Chris Grayling MP

We all agree that it is a government’s job to keep us safe.  However over the last decade we have witnessed increasingly arbitrary and authoritarian incursions by the Government into our personal freedom and privacy in the name of security.  The gradual but incessant creep of the surveillance society has fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. 

In August 2004, the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, famously warned of the possibility of the UK sleepwalking into what he referred to as a ‘surveillance society’.  A look at the inventory of intrusive measures that have emerged in recent years suggest that it may have already arrived. 

Nothing symbolises this more than the pointless and expensive ID cards scheme, a policy now mired in confusion following the Government’s decision to make ID  cards voluntary.  What many people do not realise is that even though having a card may be voluntary after this latest retreat, he is still pressing ahead with plans to automatically add passport applicant’s details to the National Identity Register, which will store large volumes of personal data.    Billions of pounds spent, and it risks making us less, not more safe.

We have the largest DNA database in the world and one which holds samples of almost a million innocent people.  Despite this practice being ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights nearly a year ago, these profiles of innocent people remain on the database.   Whilst DNA is undoubtedly vital law enforcement tool, the impact of the database on the detection of crime can be overstated.   Despite the huge expansion of the database, DNA-related detections have fallen by a fifth since 2006-07.  

There is the inappropriate use of powers to spy on the public over issues such as littering and to check residential status over school applications, a clear misuse of surveillance powers passed in good faith.  And then there was the Government’s failed attempt last year to lock up potentially innocent people for six weeks without charge.Whilst plans for a single database of communications data appear to have been dropped, proposals to require communication service providers to collect and store information on our calls, texts, emails and website visits ─ so that the security service and other public authorities can access it ─ remain in the pipeline. 

The latest encroachment of the surveillance state is the Government’s vetting and barring scheme, which could force one in four adults to prove they are not paedophiles before they can carry out voluntary work with children.    Of course teachers, school staff, youth group leaders and others in similar positions should be asked to go through a proper criminal record check. But the idea of checking the background of every parent who is an occasional helper or driver to a kids football match defies common sense. This new system wouldn’t have caught Ian Huntley or many of our other most horrendous offenders.

This Government’s approach to our personal privacy has given us the worst of all worlds – intrusive, expensive and ineffective.   A series of database fiascos has exposed us to more, not less, risk – culminating in the Treasury losing the entire nation's child benefit records in the post.   The risk to the public has been compounded by the cavalier attitude of ministers. Amidst rising concerns, Gordon Brown brushed aside data losses, conceding: ‘We can’t promise that every single item of information will always be safe.’

We have to ask ourselves where we draw the line.  Is this really the kind of country that we want to create?   One where every element of our life is monitored and where everyone has to be checked before they can do almost anything? I think we have gone too far. 

The Conservatives will reverse the rise of the surveillance state by taking a radically different approach. First, we want fewer, not more, mammoth databases – so the National Identity Register and ContactPoint will be scrapped. We will review the whole vetting and barring scheme and scale it back, to apply a system that revives common sense – one that checks those in key positions, but puts faith in our parents.

Second, we want to see less of our personal data hoarded by the state – and when it is stored, it must be held accurately and for a limited period of time.   For example, this means establishing clear principles for the use and retention of DNA, including ending the retention of innocent people’s samples.   We would adopt a system similar to that used in Scotland where the DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence would only be retained in circumstances where charges relating to a crime of violence or a sexual offence had been brought.  In these cases, DNA profiles could be retained for a maximum period of five years, subject to judicial oversight

Our personal data belongs to us.   Wherever possible, we should have the power to decide which agencies can access or modify this information.  This means greater checks on data-sharing between government departments, quangos and local councils.

A Conservative government will also restrict the exercise of surveillance powers by local  councils.  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act will be amended so that councils will only be allowed access to communications data for the purposes of assisting investigation into serious crimes.  We would make council access to such data subject to the prior approval of a warrant by a court, providing a judicial safeguard.

We need stronger duties and sanctions on government, to ensure that our personal information is held securely and that government databases are properly managed.  We want to see greater scrutiny of data legislation, and will require new powers of data-sharing to be introduced into law by primary legislation, not by order. Strengthening the independence and powers of the Information Commissioner will also be important. 

We need to regain a sense of proportionality and trust in individuals to do the right thing.   Of course we should harness new technology to strengthen public protection and public service delivery.   But we cannot rely on databases to provide an inadequate substitute for human judgment in delivering public services and protecting the public.   Amassing vast amounts of personal data in the hands of the state will not make us any safer and could make things worse.   Mistakes can so easily be made– breaches of security, cases of mistaken identity and inaccurate data- with serious consequences.   We must not allow ourselves to become a Big Brother Society.   A Conservative Government won’t let this happen. 

9 November 2009

Chris Grayling MP. Shadow Home Secretary,