Jeremy Corbyn pays tribute to Steve Hitchins

Steve Hitchins, who was the Liberal Democrat leader of Islington Borough Council between 1999 and 2006, died suddenly last night.

The Islington Gazette quotes Steve's wife, the Lib Dem peer and former MEP Sarah Ludford:

"His mission was to make things better for the residents of Islington, whether as a councillor, leader, or at the Whittington. It was all about improving services - he could be a bit brisk sometimes but I think people acknowledge that's what he was about."

I am sure I join all Lib Dems in sending Sarah my condolences.

The paper also quotes a tribute from the Labour leader and Islington MP Jeremy Corbyn:

"I am saddened to hear of the passing of Steve Hitchins. Despite being in different parties, I recognise his commitment to my borough and the work he did in support of Whittington Hospital. My condolences go to his wife Sarah and family."

Lib Dem peers swear the most

Embed from Getty Images

Something from the i newspaper to make us all proud:

Lib Dems are the most foul-mouthed peers in the House of Lords on Twitter, according to new research revealed exclusively to i. 

Six of the top 10 “sweary peers” are Lib Dems, with Baroness Sarah Ludford leading the pack with 51 profanities in 2017. 

It’s a pretty admirable feat given that peers only managed to score 287 swears between them across the whole year.

Rutland Bitter is a food name protected by the European Union

Thanks to Sarah Ludford, the Liberal Democrat shadow minister for exiting the European Union, for pointing out to me that Rutland Bitter is a protected food name under the EU.

The British government page on the protected food name scheme lays out the protections it provides:

The EU protected food name scheme highlights regional and traditional foods whose authenticity and origin can be guaranteed.

Under this system, a named food or drink registered at a European level, will be given legal protection against imitation throughout the EU.

And you can read the full product specification for Rutland Bitter there too:

Alcoholic Beverage brown/amber in colour around 3.4% alcohol by volume. Predominantly bitter in taste with some sweetness, fruity and hoppy aroma.

That specification was written to protect Ruddles, Once a rare brew even around these parts, it enjoyed a vogue in the 1980s and was to be found in many London pubs when I worked down there.

The purists felt they had sold out and that process is now complete. The Ruddles brewery at Langham in Rutland was closed back in 1997, razed and the land sold for housing. The Ruddles you buy today is brewed by Greene King in Suffolk.

But you can still enjoy a Rutland Bitter. It is brewed next to Oakham station by the excellent Grainstore Brewery. Take a close look at the image here and you will see the logo for the EU scheme.

Local intelligence, incidentally, has it that if you want to enjoy Ruddles County like it used to be, ask for Grainstore's Ten Fifty.

The question, of course, is what will happen to this protection if we leave the European Union. I suspect that is one of a thousand and one things the Brexiteers have never thought about.

The "right to be forgotten" means the BBC is effectively being censored. Where's the outrage?

More comment on the "right to be forgotten" can be found in a later post.

When the "right to be forgotten", which obliges Google to delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it,was brought into being by the European courts I wrote:

It is public figures who have the money to employ the sort of lawyers Google will take notice of. So it is public figures who are most likely to benefit from the "right to be forgotten".

If you read Robert Peston on the BBC News Business pages today, you will see how right I was.

It begins:

This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google: 

Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/ robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html 

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe. 

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

Why has this old blog post of Peston's been weeded from Google's search results? Peston explains

Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O'Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch. 

My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made. 

Is the data in it "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant"? 

Hmmm.

If the British courts had given Google the obligation to effectively censor the BBC, my fellow Liberal Democrats would have been up in arms. But so far I have seen no comment on this case from any of them.

Perhaps this shows that when you add the magic word "Europe" to any debate, we tend to suspend our critical faculties.

In fact it is worse than that.

The "right to be forgotten" was enthusiastically welcomed by Liberal Democrat MEPs (in the days when it was possible to use that plural). Here is Sarah Ludford writing in May:

It is gratifying that the Court has backed the ‘right to erasure’ that MEPs recently demanded be made explicit in the EU's updated data protection law. Coming hot on the heels of the Court’s strikedown of the Data Retention Directive, it is clear beyond doubt that the EU’s highest judicial authority stands squarely behind the European Parliament and Liberal Democrats in strengthening EU privacy rights.

It is now up to the 28 EU governments to respond to this array of forces and stop running away from the challenge to curb overreach by the state and the private sector. Enabling EU citizens to have trust that their online data will stay in their control will boost, not harm, the digital economy.

But, just as I forecast, it is not private citizens who are benefiting from this new right but the rich and powerful.

As Peston explains:

Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record - especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).

The "right to be forgotten" is a worrying development

The Guardian reports:

The top European court has backed the "right to be forgotten" and said Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

Is this workable? Will judges' idea of what is relevant be the same as that of the wider public? And, most importantly, will it be members of the public who make most use of this power?

The press release from the Court of Justice of the European Union that accompanies the judgment does allow for the idea that those in power should find it harder to use this new right:

However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, the Court holds that a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. 

The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, this balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.

Nevertheless, it is public figures who have the money to employ the sort of lawyers Google will take notice of. So it is public figures who are most likely to benefit from the "right to be forgotten".

Indeed, public figures already have some power to censor Google searches. Type in the name of a Labour peer who has been in the news recently and on page two of the results you will see this...

I suppose I should declare an interest here. My Comment is Free piece a couple of days ago relied heavily on my memories of half-forgotten scandals and Google. Laughing at the sins and follies of the wealthy is one of the things the internet was made for, as well as being one of the traditional consolations of the poor.

Do we really want to see an end to that? Must we now respect public figures no matter how badly they behave?

I was alarmed to see Sarah Ludford welcoming the court's decision in the Guardian. But, as is entirely appropriate, when you look at the report now her name as entirely disappeared.

We had better get used to it.

GUEST POST How Liberal Democrats can help fight for privacy rights in Europe

Peter Bradwell, policy director for the Open Rights Group, asks whether the Internet will continue to be a kind of 'surveillance state' or if people will instead be given the tools to seize control over their personal information and how it is used. 

In the past year Liberal Democrats have had a good stab of standing up for citizens' privacy rights. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg demanded that the Home Office's 'snoopers' charter' be subjected to the scrutiny of a Joint Committee. Julian Huppert MP was a key figure on the Committee and was integral in highlighting the faults with the proposals.

All of this was underpinned by an active membership who worked hard to emphasise the illiberal nature of the Home Office's plans. That fight continues.

But another equally important front has opened in the fight for our privacy. This time the debate is unfolding in the European Parliament. The same principles are at stake. And just like with the Communications Data Bill, Liberal Democrats could play a key role determining what sort of law we end up with.

The Data Protection Regulation was proposed by the European Commission last January. It is now being considered by MEPs in the Parliament, with a number of committees voting on what amendments they would like to see. To simplify the seemingly complicated European policy making process, these opinions will be important in the negotiations. A more final Regulation will come out the other end of those negotiations. I'll come back to the committees, and why the Liberal Democrats have an important role, later.

Privacy law is not a fertile pasture for humour, so excuse this rather weak joke. My new favourite answer to the question: "What do you think about privacy online?" is: "I think it would be a good idea."

I did say it was weak. But the point is that we have surrendered control over when we give personal information away and over how it is used. Bruce Schneier is a well known security expert. This week he said "The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time."

Information about us spills from our devices and the services and apps we use, sharing the sites we visit, the things we like or comment on, the prices we pay, the people we contact and the places we go. Too often we do not control how and by whom our personal information will be used. Too often the data is not secure enough, with abuses and mistakes going effectively unpunished.

The mass of personal data we leave behind is increasingly used by institutions and organisations to make many important decisions about us. These profiles affect everything from the marketing offers we receive through to the credit ratings and insurance decisions we are subject to. The information feeds those who wish to learn about our movements, personalities, histories, relationships.

We do not have to acquiesce to this state of affairs. We should have no truck with arguments that about genies being out of bottles. Weak laws and weak enforcement helped to create this environment. A new and powerful Data Protection Regulation will help fix it.

It could give people more control over their data and hold those that collect and use it to account.  It would give us, for example, a stronger definition of consent, stronger rights to have our data erased, and enable us to find out about and challenge profiling. For more on the key issues, you can read the short briefing on our website.

The European Commission's proposed Regulation looks very promising. But it is coming under intense lobbying pressure from US data monopolies, the US government and the ad industry. They are seeking amendments that would, for example, weaken the definition of consent, undermine the rights to erasure and 'portability' and create broad 'legitimate interest' carve outs.

Some of these businesses are built on the absence of meaningful privacy online. They are telling law makers that we should not have stronger privacy laws because it would harm their business. The tail is having a good go at wagging the dog.

If these lobbyists get their way, we believe privacy rights for EU citizens would be severely undermined. We would forego a unique opportunity to build a data economy based on a respect for people's privacy. The Regulation could set the rules for the next 20 or so years.

Putting people in control of their data gives them a meaningful stake in decisions that affect them. It is a principle should be an integral part of a liberal democratic digital economy. The Data Protection Regulation is Europeans' shot at getting this principle into law.

Some Liberal Democrat MEPs have very important positions in this policy making process. And we are concerned that they may support the more worrying positions taken by those lobbyists opposed to stronger privacy rights.

For example, on 10 March Baroness Ludford wrote to the Financial Times saying:

concerns have been put to me about aspects that are inflexible, bureaucratic or not user-friendly by European academic and medical researchers, business-to-business marketing companies, telecoms suppliers, insurance groups and banks, the CBI and Federation of Small Businesses well as – yes – American IT companies.

Baroness Ludford's position is extremely important. She sits on the LIBE Committee, which is the lead Committee in the European Parliament for the Regulation. They will vote on an opinion next month. Members are currently considering their position. (For more information on the process and the Committees involved, see the guide from European Digital Rights.)

We were concerned at her failure to mention the interests and rights of citizens. Last week Open Rights Group and Privacy International wrote to Baroness Ludford, urging her to support a strong Regulation that gives people more control over their personal information. You can read our letter on the ORG blog. We will be meeting Baroness Ludford to discuss our concerns soon.

Data protection law can seem like an arcane, complex beast. And it sort of is. But there are simple principles at stake. The outcome of this process will settle whether the Internet continues to be a kind of 'surveillance state'. Or if instead people are given the tools to seize back control over their personal information and how it is used.

This is how Liberal Democrats in the UK can help us get a better law. If you want to see a strong Regulation that gives people more control over their data, contacting Baroness Ludford as soon as possible to explain why would be extremely useful. You can contact her at her European Parliament email address.

Peter Bradwell tweets @peterbradwell.

Nick Clegg and Sara Ludford on Europe

Two emails have landed in my inbox this afternoon.

Nick Clegg writes:

As I have made clear since Friday, I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last weeks summit, which ended with the UK in a minority of one. There is now a real danger that over time the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the EU and as a consequence, our influence in the world will shrink. That is not good for jobs and growth; and will do nothing for struggling families across the country. 

There is no doubt that we were in a difficult position because of the refusal to compromise from some member states and the eurosceptics in the Conservative Party. It was clear that some combination of guarantees on the operation of the single market, including in financial services, was necessary if we were going to ensure the safe passage of the package through Parliament. I regret the negotiations failed to arrive at a compromise, as I had hoped.

And Sarah Ludford, the London Lib Dem MEP, writes:

I think some of what Cameron asked for in Brussels was reasonable insofar as it sought to ensure that decisions in the Eurozone could not trump the single market and exclude the UK, for instance an assurance that the European Banking Authority would stay in London. Some of it though was too technical and/or was pushing the envelope in trying to get a veto over financial services legislation instead of the normal majority voting which applies to all single market laws. 

The basic problem was that the other leaders were just not willing to listen to more demands for UK ‘exceptionalism’, although admittedly Sarkozy was determined anyway to be as unhelpful as possible. Cameron’s credibility with Angela Merkel and others who might have been expected to want Britain involved was at zero because of the hostile ravings of the Eurosceptic rabble.

I gave my own views on Saturday. I am increasingly struck that the people most outraged at David Cameron's failure to reach an agreement in Brussels are those who are usually most opposed to austerity measures.