Ed Miliband campaigns before the Rochester and Strood by-election on October 23, 2014 in Chatham. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Miliband shows his confidence on the EU

The Labour leader regards his party's commitment to membership as a political strength. 

The most significant thing about today's PMQs was Ed Miliband's choice of subject matter: EU membership. If Labour once feared its stance on the issue was a weakness, it now regards it as a strength. After being rebuked by Angela Merkel for his demand to abandon the free movement of people, it is ever harder for David Cameron to argue that he can secure the reforms he believes are necessary for Britain to remain in the EU. As a result, he is being forced to flirt with the possibility of withdrawal. 

Pressed by Miliband on whether he was prepared to campaign for an "out" vote (an option he previously ruled out), the PM filibustered. "I want Britain to stay in a reformed European Union," he said. But is it possible to reform Europe? Many Conservative MPs no longer believe it is, a divide Miliband skillfully exploited today. "There's no point giving us the 'fight them on the beaches' speech because the last time he tried that was over Jean-Claude Juncker and he lost 26 votes to 2. That's his leadership in Europe," he said, and the Tory benches were notably muted. 

In contrast to Cameron, Miliband was unambiguous: "I want to stay in the EU". As well as being buoyed by polls showing support for membership at a 23-year high, Labour regards its commitment to the EU as one of its few trump cards on business (Miliband told Cameron that business leaders would have their "heads in their hands" over his stance - and many do ). But a significant number of Labour MPs continue to fear that Cameron's charge that the party is too "chicken" to "trust the people" is one that could hurt it during the election campaign. 

With the aid of an arsenal of critical Labour quotes, Cameron held his own in the chamber. He noted that Alistair Darling ("about the only person on the Labour benches who had any economic credibility") had argued that an EU referendum was inevitable ("It's a boil that has to be lanced"), that shadow deputy leader of the House Thomas Docherty had warned Labour was in a "dreadful position" and that even John Prescott was now giving Miliband lectures on the English language (although the sight of Cameron deriding the working class northerner is unlikely to have endeared him to all). 

The other notable point from today's session was the co-ordinated Labour assault on PM over VAT. With Cameron again refusing to rule out another rise, it is clear this will be a key election attack line for the opposition. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496