© Martin Argles for the GuardianTim Farron, above, will submit the motion on surveillance to the Liberal Democrats' spring party conference. Photograph:
Judicial oversight of state surveillance and a regular release of the number of data requests made by the security services should be among the issues examined by a government "commission of experts" into all the recent allegations raised by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, the Liberal Democrats are to propose.
They will also call for the commission to review the effectiveness of all legislation surrounding the security services, including the system of parliamentary accountability. They envisage the commission as being modelled on Barack Obama's privacy and civil liberties oversight board, a five-strong body of legal, industry and security experts appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress. The board has been advising Obama on his imminent response to Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor.
The comprehensive response is being submitted in a motion to the Lib Dem spring conference by the party's president, Tim Farron, and home affairs select committee chairman, Julian Huppert. Such high-profile support suggests it is almost certain to be passed.
The terms of the motion have been discussed with Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem home affairs minister Norman Baker, and represent the most substantive sign that the Snowden revelations may yet prompt a political response in the UK similar to the one under way in the US and continental Europe.
A spokesman for Clegg said: "The motion is very much in line with Nick's thinking and he agrees with its principles."
The motion says mass surveillance of citizens without suspicion is alien to British traditions. It proposes that the government should not undertake bulk collection of data and could only access the metadata, or content of communications of an individual, "if there is suspicion of involvement in unlawful activity".
It also calls for a ban on fresh powers of surveillance, accessing data, and accessing new technologies without explicit prior parliamentary approval.
The commission would look at the resources and accountability of the bodies responsible for overseeing the security services, including select committees, tribunals and commissioners.
Farron said: "I think for many ordinary people we can through this issue restore the good name of human rights and civil liberties. I don't think that people realised that the nation's phone conversations could be accessed systematically by the state in this way. As Liberal Democrats, we understand the need for a security services, but also for an accountable security service working in the context of a digital bill of rights. In my personal view we have got to make the intelligence and security select committee operate on the same basis as other Commons select committees". We are trying to strengthen Nick Clegg's arm in government for the conversations now going on about how to respond to Snowden."
He said the recent appointments of Baker, and Simon Hughes to the Ministry of Justice, should be seen as a commitment by his party to strengthen the voice of civil liberties within Whitehall.
The commission of experts would be independent of business and security services. Its appointment would be an admission that the current closed investigation by the government-appointed Intelligence and Security Committee is not likely to gather public trust.
The motion says: "Indiscriminate harvesting and storage of the communications and metadata of people without suspicion is incompatible with our liberal and democratic principles, and has the potential to cast a chilling effect on free speech and free association.
"Whilst there are legitimate concerns surrounding national security, such concerns must not be invoked simply as a pretext to undertake blanket surveillance, stifle investigative journalism, or discourage public debate."
It adds that the surveillance of people without suspicion is "alien to our traditional British values" and adds: "The internet has the power to liberate, to educate, to bring people closer together, and to boost our economy." But it suggests, in line with many internet companies, that "such potential will be undermined by government control, surveillance, and censorship".
It also proposes an "annual release of government transparency reports which publish, as a minimum, the annual number of user data requests made by law enforcement, the intelligence agencies, and other authorities, broken down by requesting authority, success rates, types of data requested and category of crime or event being investigated".
At present the two relevant commissioners - the interception of communications commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner - do not provide this level of detail.
Huppert said: "Of course we benefit from the work of the intelligence and security agencies. But the recent revelations, covered so well in the Guardian, have shown just how much their surveillance has extended without parliamentary approval and without sufficient oversight. We need to set clear guidelines for state surveillance, and update our laws to match our principles."
The motion also suggests that the government should accelerate and expand the midata project, to grant citizens access to all their data in an open digital format, regardless of which business holds that data.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter