ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now are Britain’s anti-terror laws fit for purpose?  Well the former boss of MI5, Lord Evans, argues that new legislation is vital if Britain is to prevent terror attacks, so why are the Liberal Democrats blocking them?  I’m joined now by the former Lib Dem leader, Paddy Ashdown, a very good morning to you.  The ball is firmly in the Lib Dems court isn’t it, we’ve heard that from Lord Evans, no longer fit for purpose, our terror laws, we know the Prime Minister agrees and probably Barack Obama, why are you blocking this legislation?

PADDY ASHDOWN: Well actually no, we agree with Barack Obama, very much so.  There is a really interesting difference between Barack Obama who said yes, we have to be secure but we also have to protect our liberties and Mr Cameron, who is much more cavalier about the protection of liberties.  But look, the ball’s in our court to protect the nation’s liberties, that’s correct, that’s where we are in government and we’re proud to be there but it’s not unusual for those in the security services to want more powers, that’s their job, they should want more powers but the job of politicians is to be much more jealous and guarded about giving away unless it is absolutely necessary the basic liberties of the state so if Lord Evans is saying wither the terrorists go we have to go, I agree and the Liberal Democrats agree.  If they’ve moved on to Skype and we can’t get there, of course we have to, indeed we are supporting the legislation precisely to do that but if he is saying that we should somehow damage or alter the basic principles upon which the state has a right to intercept the communications of the citizen from those that have been in existence for 150 years and have kept this country both free and safe through two world wars the no, I don’t agree.

DM: But the problem is, as they point out, the technology has changed and therefore the law needs to change to adapt to some of those technologies, they didn’t envisage some of the forms of communication we have now.

PADDY ASHDOWN: No, the technology is fine … let me say, wither the terrorist or the wrong-doer, the person suspected of wrong-doing, goes the state has to be able to go.  The state has to be able where it is necessary for the security of the state and ensuring that serious crime like paedophilia is not committed, has the right to intercept communications of the citizen where they have a deep suspicion that there is something nefarious going on.  I accept that completely and it is the case that our legislation up until now, our technology up until now has not enabled us to reach into that so I absolutely accept that and the Liberal Democrats accept that too.  Let me tell you a little story, Dermot, I’ll probably have to eat you after I’ve told you!

DM: There’s a thought!

PADDY ASHDOWN: But in my early 30s was a member of one of these organisations, I can’t tell you which one it was, charged with the security of the state and as part of my training I was taken into a shed, sort of a large warehouse somewhere in London and as you opened the door you were assailed by a blanket of steam and as you walked in there were about 200 desks, each with a post office engineer, a pile of letters and a steaming kettle and what they were doing was steaming open the citizens letters.  Now the principles that applied then, and okay the technology has moved way beyond the steaming kettle, where one, the state has a right to do this where you are targeting an individual – not a class of people, not all Jews, not all blacks, not all whites, not everybody which is what we are doing now, the whole nation is made a nation of suspects under these proposals as they are put forward.  Two, it has to be evidence based, so you have to have reasonable evidence that this person has a suspicion of acting in a way damaging to the state and three, it has to be agreed by a third party, a Home Secretary accountable to Parliament or some judicial force.  Now those are the three principles that applied then, those are the three principles that should apply, they are the principles that have protected us for 150 years even in times of world war and I see no reason to change those and by the way, neither do many in the security services.  I have spoken to many in the security services who say yes, we are perfectly content with the …

DM: But you know what they say in the security services, they say that as you pointed out there, that technology has moved on and forms of communication have moved on from steaming open letters with kettles, there are things out there, there are ways of communicating now that we are only just getting on to and doesn’t it need a slight alteration of the law then to allow them to have that.

PADDY ASHDOWN: No, but it does and that’s the law that’s coming in.  There is quite a confusion about this, you see again I come back to the other principle, wither goest the terrorist there we, the state that secures the state, has to go.  So of course we are extending the legislation, of course Liberal Democrats are in favour of saying if you can’t get to Skype, if you can’t get to Facebook, if you can’t get to Twitter, then we have to have legislation that enables you to do so but the basic principles that you apply in doing that for the protection of the liberties of the individual …

DM: You can’t snoop on everyone.

PADDY ASHDOWN: …  do not need to be altered.  By the way, Mr Obama said exactly the same thing and by the way, Dermot, it will surprise many of your listeners but in this business of being jealous and protective of our civil liberties, the fact is the United States is now miles ahead of us as Mr Obama made very clear in his difference with the Prime Minister when …

DM: But didn’t Edward Snowden tell us, I mean this debate rather might be about how many angels on the head of a pin, i.e. not very relevant, in the sense that the security services seem to be doing a lot of the things anyway, extra-judicial or however we want to call it but they are snooping on a grand scale and quite often some of the information that we require comes back to us from the Americans.

PADDY ASHDOWN: Yes and you are right to bring that up because that has been a seminal event because exactly the Snowden revelations caused a debate to be held in the United States about encryption and about privacy which enabled the United States to place a much higher value on individual privacy and liberty than is now the case in Britain, so you are right, things have changed as a result of Snowden.  I’m not a great …

DM: Do you think he did us a service?

PADDY ASHDOWN: Look, I don’t particularly admire Mr Snowden I must say, I think he’s become rather casual about damaging the security of his own state and I don’t like that for obvious reasons, given my background and both where I’ve been but I think he may have done us a service in unveiling the extent of what has happened. I don't admire his act and I don’t admire the man but if you ask me has he done us a service in initiating this debate, I think he may have done but the extraordinary thing is that the United States has faced up to that whereas in this country Mr Cameron is still galloping after fundamentally altering our own rights to privacy if you are innocent.

DM: But you’ve got to believe the Prime Minister’s sincerity, I mean he’s motivated by trying to protect the …

PADDY ASHDOWN: Well of course I believe his sincerity but I suspect this is not…

DM: But you have to ask yourself and your party a basic question though which a lot of people are asking, if heaven forfend an attack did happen similar to Paris or something different in which innocent people died, don’t you the Liberal Democrats have to ask yourself that if we had allowed these laws this might not have happened?  Would  that not be … do you not have a scintilla of doubt about that?

PADDY ASHDOWN: Let’s deal with Mr Cameron just for a second, I mean he probably is sincere but I suspect this is not wholly unconnected with the general election as well.  Excuse me, you are talking to somebody who passed through, who served on the streets of Belfast as a soldier against the IRA.  The IRA killed many more people so far than the Jihadi’s have, throughout that period when they were blowing up the City of London, when they were planting bombs in Hyde Park, we stuck to these principles so let’s …

DM: But let’s stay with the history of Northern Ireland, Paddy, I mean we know that information was coming from informers, double agents and all kinds of nefarious sources with one aim in mind, to stop those terrorist events happening.

PADDY ASHDOWN: Yes, but you see the terrorist events that happened in Paris, it isn’t that we didn’t know who they were, we did because they were not hidden from their communication.  The problem was that the security services in France didn’t act effectively.   I think it is … I think it’s, you know, the truth of it is that this was nothing about hidden communications, this was about inadequate actions from our security services so I would say to our security services, if you need the laws to enable you to go where the terrorist goes, you should have them and we will give them to you.  I would also say if you need the resources, fine but I would say I see nothing in the present situation that causes us to alter the basic principles about the privacy of innocent individuals from those that have existed through two world wars and many, many serious threats to our security like the IRA, for 150 years.  My principle is this, if you are innocent you are entitled to be able to have your communications in private in which the state does not intrude. If you are suspected of serious crime, that doesn’t apply.

DM: Okay, well that begs several questions but we’re going to have to leave it there because I want to ask you lastly about these television debates, are they going to take place?  I mean the Liberal Democrats will debate presumably with anyone, there is a line drawn somewhere but the Liberal Democrats will turn up more or less whoever is there.

PADDY ASHDOWN: I’m a Liberal, of course I will, I love debate, I’ll take my soap box anywhere and I’ll debate with anybody but the issue is not for us to decide who is in or out, the issue is this is not a decision that should be left to the politicians, it is not a decision that should be decided duress of the power of the Prime Minister, it is a decision that ought to be decided by an independent body subject to law.  That’s the principle we’re attached to, it’s not about the Greens coming in, it’s about making sure that politicians don’t make this decision and you guys, you guys at Sky, you almost invented these things, together with the BBC have subject to law come up with a certain set of propositions.  It’s not our job to intervene.  By the way, they are not very good for us, I mean we have things that we don’t like about them but we will accept them in the interests of debate.  If it’s the case that the Greens want in there, it is perfectly clear what they should do, not hide behind the Prime Minister but go to court and there is legislation, they can challenge it, let them do that.

DM: Okay, Paddy Ashdown, very good to see you as ever.  Thank you very much indeed, the former Lib Dem leader there.