The questions William Hague needs to answer about GCHQ and Prism

The Foreign Secretary claims law-abiding citizens have "nothing to fear" but MPs will want more reassurance than that.

After his rather unreassuring statement that law-abiding citizens have "nothing to fear", William Hague will make a Commons statement today on claims that GCHQ received data gathered through the US spy programme Prism. Papers obtained by the Guardian suggest that the UK's security agency last year generated 197 intelligence reports through the system, which gave the FBI and the National Security Agency access to the servers of nine of the world's biggest internet companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Skype, and has had access since at least June 2010.

The main concern voiced by MPs is that GCHQ may have used Prism to circumvent the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which requires ministerial authority for intercepting data content such as emails. In his appearance on The Andrew Marr Show, Hague declared that it was "fanciful" and "nonsense" to suggest that this was the case, but refused to either confirm or deny that the security agency had accessed the system, insisting that "This is secret is secret for a reason". He also said: "What people need to know is intelligence-gathering in this country by the UK is governed by a very strong legal framework so that we get the balance right between the liberties and privacy of people and the security of the country." But MPs want far more detail on just how strong that "legal framework" is. Here are some of the questions Hague will be expected to answer. 

- When did you and other ministers first learn of the existence of Prism?

- Did you approve GCHQ's use of Prism or were intelligence officials able to make requests to directly the US authorities?

- Does the intelligence and security committee have the resources necessary to carry out effective scrutiny of GCHQ?

- Why was Prism not mentioned in the most recent report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner Office?

- Is this a backdoor version of the Communications Data Bill (or "snooper's charter")? 

Foreign Secretary William Hague outside Downing Street on 18 March 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.