Lord Carlile’s call for the investigatory powers bill to be “fast-tracked” through parliament in the wake of the tragic events in Paris was as unsurprising as it was disappointing. It would be far from the first time that laws giving additional powers to the security services were rushed through on a wave of emotion, without an opportunity for proper scrutiny and with far-reaching consequences.

Carlile himself has particular form. He was one of those who advised the coalition government on the ill-fated communications data bill – dubbed by many the “snooper’s charter” – and after the killing in Woolwich of Lee Rigby in 2013 he suggested that the murder should “haunt” Nick Clegg, while proposing pushing the rejected bill through parliament once more.

The surveillance bill is as big a threat to state security as to personal liberty | Simon Jenkins Read more

He tried the same again after the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris in January 2015, working with three other peers to add most of the communications data bill as a late-stage amendment to another already complex bill that had already made most of its way through parliament. Carlile may not be an entirely disinterested party here: as revealed in the Guardian two weeks ago, he has earned £400,000 from a consultancy business that he formed in 2012 with ex-MI6 chief Sir John Scarlett that specialises in the field.

And yet there is very little reason to suggest that the kinds of powers envisaged in either the old communications data bill or the new investigatory powers bill would have had any effect on the events concerned. The men convicted of the murder of Lee Rigby, as well as the Charlie Hebdo shooters, the Boston bombers, the man behind the Sydney siege in 2014 – indeed all the major terrorist attacks in the west in recent years – were already known to the authorities. Though there is very little information to go on about the latest Paris atrocities, the first man named as being involved, Omar Ismail Mostefai, had been identified as a “high priority for radicalisation” by the authorities as long ago as 2010.

It is possible, of course, that mass surveillance played a part in the identification of those involved in all these atrocities – but what we know so far suggests that it was through far more “conventional” means. The Charlie Hebdo shooter Chérif Kouachi, for example, had been on the French authorities’ radar for 10 years, having been arrested in 2003 trying to reach Syria to fight the US forces in Iraq. Lee Rigby’s murderer Michael Adebolajo had been trained by known radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammad as long ago as 2003, and was arrested in Kenya in 2010, believed to be planning to train with a militant group associated with al-Qaida. There are similar stories for the perpetrators of all the other atrocities – which suggests that targeted rather than mass surveillance could have worked better.

Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, recently argued that he wanted a “mature debate” over surveillance and he was right. We do need a mature debate. The events of Paris should make that debate even more important – the nature of the threat has been made starkly clear – but should mean that we do it sensibly and rationally. Is this really likely to be the best way forward? Technological specialists suggest otherwise – last week’s appearance of industry experts before the parliamentary science and technology committee to discuss the technological aspects of the investigatory powers bill should have been a salutary lesson about rushing legislation through. The issues raised by these experts – whose companies would be responsible for much of the implementation of the bill – were wide-ranging and fundamental.

This snooper’s charter makes George Orwell look lacking in vision| Heather Brooke Read more

This is all without even mentioning the civil liberties arguments – and those arguments against mass surveillance should not be dismissed in the light of tragedy either. The discussions need to be had at all levels: efficacy, proportionality, appropriate allocation of resources, intended and unintended consequences all need to be considered.

David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, entitled his far-reaching report into surveillance A Question of Trust. Laws made in haste rarely generate that crucial trust – and are very seldom a good idea. This bill needs time and intelligent debate, not an emotionally charged rush.