Politicians Didn't Bother Showing Up to Debate the UK's 'Emergency' Data Law

Yesterday, the British parliament pushed a controversial surveillance bill through its first stage to becoming law. But though this law will affect the privacy of everyone in the country, hardly any politicians really questioned it.

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, or "DRIP" as it's being called, was rushed through the House of Commons this week as emergency legislation with little discussion.

Paul Bernal, author of Internet Privacy Rights and one of a group of academics that sent an open letter to Parliament warning of the dangers of DRIP, tweeted a picture of the "debate": about a dozen representatives scattered throughout the otherwise deserted room.

“This is how seriously our MPs take our privacy,” Bernal wrote. “Key, critical debate. Almost no-one there.”

This is how seriously our MPs take our privacy. Key, critical debate. Almost no-one there. #DRIP pic.twitter.com/788G62aSRB

— Paul Bernal (@PaulbernalUK) July 15, 2014

The law is not exactly the most exciting piece of legislation—as some commentators have pointed out—but it is an important one. It will continue to force telecom and phone companies to keep their customers' metadata, despite a recent European court case ruling that holding onto data in this sort of way is unconstitutional. On top of that, and in contrast to the government's line that it will just maintain the status quo, experts have said that it will actually increase the state's surveillance powers. Your information will be stored even if you are not suspected of committing a crime, and the 'emergency' law has been justified as necessary for combating terrorism and serious crime.

In all, 49 MPs voted against DRIP and an overwhelming 436 for it, meaning that all of the necessary stages in the House of Commons have been completed. Before it becomes law, it needs to pass the House of Lords, proceedings of which are expected to start this afternoon. Once that happens, there will be no further opportunity for Parliament to debate its terms.

“The outcome was always inevitable—I knew that, as, I think did all opponents of the bill,” said Bernal on his blog. What may have come as more of a surprise, however, is the indifference exhibited by most politicians to the bill, or “the way in which parliament was engaging with the issues,” Bernal wrote.

Some people shot back at Bernal, saying that politicians may have been listening and following the debate, but just weren't present in the room. That might be worse, according to Bernal. “If they listened to the debate and still voted the way they did, in a way that’s even more depressing than the more natural assumption that they were largely ignoring the debate and voting according to the whip.”

Of the politicians actually at the debate, some were disappointed at the turn out. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party said, “"If parliament is not taking itself seriously, why should anyone else take it seriously?"

The rush was also met with criticism by more left-of-field politicians. Loz Kaye, leader of the Pirate Party UK, wrote that, “Apparently there is a national emergency going on. Not that you would particularly notice, as our elected representatives have been as busy Tweeting snarky comments about the reshuffle as actually debating the future of the communications of every person in the country.”

The "reshuffle" that Kaye is referring to is the process of politicians switching jobs this week. It created a lot of media fanfare, possibly causing distraction from this law.

Even the United Nations have been worried about the UK's decision, with the high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, telling the Guardian, “To me it's difficult to see how the UK can now justify rushing through wide-reaching emergency legislation which may not fully address the concerns raised by the court, at time when there are proceedings ongoing by the UK's own investigative powers tribunal on these very issues.”

Advocates say that this law is essential to convict serious criminals. Ken Macdonald, a former UK director of public prosecutions, writing in the Guardian, said that “It's hard to think of a single piece of heavyweight criminal litigation in recent years that hasn't included communications metadata.”

But apart from these snippets, there has been very little debate on what the effects of this law will actually mean. “They accepted an unnecessary fast-tracking, effectively on trust—because they don’t really take our privacy seriously,” Bernal, the academic, wrote.

But even if the majority of politicians don't care about this policy, others are stepping in. “On Monday even one of the Twitter accounts associated with Anonymous was urging UK citizens to contact their members of Parliament. It's telling that Anonymous seem more concerned about democratic engagement than our MPs,” Kaye wrote.

This latest move shows the indifference held by the majority of British politicians when it comes to issues of privacy. Or more worryingly, the aversion they have to debating a law that will affect everyone in the country.