This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/18/labour-peers-under-fire-backing-expansion-of-surveillance-investigatory-powers-bill
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Labour peers under fire for backing expansion of surveillance powers Labour peers under fire for backing expansion of surveillance powers | |
| (1 day later) | |
| Privacy campaigners have expressed anger over a vote by 64 Labour peers to back an expansion of state surveillance powers, within hours of a ruling by top judges that the spying agencies unlawfully scooped up personal confidential information on a massive scale for more than a decade. | Privacy campaigners have expressed anger over a vote by 64 Labour peers to back an expansion of state surveillance powers, within hours of a ruling by top judges that the spying agencies unlawfully scooped up personal confidential information on a massive scale for more than a decade. |
| The Labour peers voted with the government to ensure that major new powers are handed to the security services to get access to records tracking every citizen’s web use for the past 12 months. | The Labour peers voted with the government to ensure that major new powers are handed to the security services to get access to records tracking every citizen’s web use for the past 12 months. |
| The Liberal Democrat attempt to delete the powers to order the collection and storage of the new internet connection records from the investigatory powers bill in the House of Lords was voted down by 75 to 292. | The Liberal Democrat attempt to delete the powers to order the collection and storage of the new internet connection records from the investigatory powers bill in the House of Lords was voted down by 75 to 292. |
| It was notable that neither the former Labour home secretary Lord Blunkett nor the new shadow attorney general, and former Liberty director, Lady Chakrabarti, took part in the vote. The 64 Labour peers who voted with the government included frontbench spokespersons, Lady Hayter and Lord Rosser and the party’s chief whip, Lord Bassam. | It was notable that neither the former Labour home secretary Lord Blunkett nor the new shadow attorney general, and former Liberty director, Lady Chakrabarti, took part in the vote. The 64 Labour peers who voted with the government included frontbench spokespersons, Lady Hayter and Lord Rosser and the party’s chief whip, Lord Bassam. |
| The vote came just hours after the ruling by the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court to hear complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, that the security services had until 2015 secretly and illegally collected huge volumes of confidential data of millions of British citizens without adequate or safeguards. | The vote came just hours after the ruling by the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court to hear complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, that the security services had until 2015 secretly and illegally collected huge volumes of confidential data of millions of British citizens without adequate or safeguards. |
| The Labour peers’ vote also contrasted with a sharp attack on the investigatory powers bill by the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, who described it as “draconian” and said the ruling demonstrated why it needed amending. | The Labour peers’ vote also contrasted with a sharp attack on the investigatory powers bill by the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, who described it as “draconian” and said the ruling demonstrated why it needed amending. |
| “The latest ruling from the investigatory powers tribunal should be a sharp reminder that we should not lightly hand over powers to the security services and police and that greater accountability is needed. The government’s bill needs amending in all these areas,” said Abbott, who has sharpened Labour’s approach to the bill since the party abstained on its Commons second reading. | “The latest ruling from the investigatory powers tribunal should be a sharp reminder that we should not lightly hand over powers to the security services and police and that greater accountability is needed. The government’s bill needs amending in all these areas,” said Abbott, who has sharpened Labour’s approach to the bill since the party abstained on its Commons second reading. |
| The Lib Dem Lord Paddick said: “Labour’s decision not to back us in opposing this huge intrusion into our privacy shows once and for all that they cannot claim to be the party of civil liberties, regardless of who sits on their benches. | The Lib Dem Lord Paddick said: “Labour’s decision not to back us in opposing this huge intrusion into our privacy shows once and for all that they cannot claim to be the party of civil liberties, regardless of who sits on their benches. |
| “Internet connection records are ill-conceived and disproportionate and no doubt this fight will continue in the courts.” | “Internet connection records are ill-conceived and disproportionate and no doubt this fight will continue in the courts.” |
| Jim Killock, the Director of the Open Rights Group also strongly criticised the Labour peers. He said: “Labour did not table any serious amendments to this draconian legislation in the House of Lords. Labour is simply failing to hold the government to account. | Jim Killock, the Director of the Open Rights Group also strongly criticised the Labour peers. He said: “Labour did not table any serious amendments to this draconian legislation in the House of Lords. Labour is simply failing to hold the government to account. |
| “The Labour Lords had an opportunity to improve the IP bill and make it closer to becoming a surveillance law fit for a democracy not a dictatorship. They could have called for proposals to record UK citizens’ web browsing history to be scrapped or demanded that the police need independent authorisation to access our data.” | “The Labour Lords had an opportunity to improve the IP bill and make it closer to becoming a surveillance law fit for a democracy not a dictatorship. They could have called for proposals to record UK citizens’ web browsing history to be scrapped or demanded that the police need independent authorisation to access our data.” |
| But Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith told the Guardian: “It’s pretty rich for the Lib Dems to question our peers over this, when a number of their own side also voted against the amendment. It’s also the case that we were voting to protect a concession achieved earlier in the day – and which follows our general strategy towards the bill, to try and improve it wherever necessary. | But Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith told the Guardian: “It’s pretty rich for the Lib Dems to question our peers over this, when a number of their own side also voted against the amendment. It’s also the case that we were voting to protect a concession achieved earlier in the day – and which follows our general strategy towards the bill, to try and improve it wherever necessary. |
| “The impressive work of Labour colleagues in the Commons during the report stage there and our own shadow home affairs team in the Lords has contributed significantly to the government’s tabling of over 300 amendments to its own bill – including on greater safeguards against abuse,” Lady Smith said. | “The impressive work of Labour colleagues in the Commons during the report stage there and our own shadow home affairs team in the Lords has contributed significantly to the government’s tabling of over 300 amendments to its own bill – including on greater safeguards against abuse,” Lady Smith said. |
| “Appalling as the tribunal ruling is, it is historic and the regimes used to hold and collect data since 2015 have been legal and appropriate. This bill updates and improves the framework used by agencies and the way existing investigatory powers are authorised. It also enables, for the first time, judicial commissioners to veto warrant approvals made by the home secretary.” | “Appalling as the tribunal ruling is, it is historic and the regimes used to hold and collect data since 2015 have been legal and appropriate. This bill updates and improves the framework used by agencies and the way existing investigatory powers are authorised. It also enables, for the first time, judicial commissioners to veto warrant approvals made by the home secretary.” |
| The peers secured a concession that access to web browsing histories should not be given to the police involved in investigations into offences that carried a prison sentence of less than 12 months. The government had proposed the threshold should be six months. | The peers secured a concession that access to web browsing histories should not be given to the police involved in investigations into offences that carried a prison sentence of less than 12 months. The government had proposed the threshold should be six months. |