Nick Clegg continues to oppose the Snooper's Charter. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nick Clegg clashes with David Cameron over privacy laws post-Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack

The Deputy Prime Minister warns against the so-called Snooper's Charter returning to the political agenda.

Nick Clegg is clashing with the Prime Minister over reviewing privacy laws in Britain, in light of the terrorist attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo last week.

Both David Cameron and Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, have called for Britain's intelligence services to be given new powers to read the contents of citizens' communications, in order to avoid similar "mass casualty attacks" here.

This signals the return of the so-called Snooper's Charter to the political agenda. The Communications Data Bill, which would give the government new powers to see the contents of any of our messages, phonecalls and other communications without a warrant, will go in the Conservative manifesto for the election this year. Parker referred specifically to the supposed danger of our privacy being "so absolute and sacrosanct", and supports more powers against privacy for the security service.

However, Nick Clegg is reaffirming the Lib Dems' opposition to this legislation this week. One of his party's often-trumpeted triumphs in office is having blocked the Tories' Bill, and it appears Clegg is as determined as ever to oppose what he sees as a threat to our civil liberties.

He told the BBC's Today programme this morning that while he supports plans to, "strengthen our defences to make ourselves physically safe", he sees a law closing in on our privacy as a "slippery slope . . . if we start to censor or self-censor ourselves as a society."

His argument is that the Bill is an "unworkable proposition", because much of our communication, and industries that we rely on, are based outside of the UK's jurisdiction anyway. He also questions the efficiency and necessity of monitoring everyone's messages: "Scooping up vast amounts of information on everyone, children, grandmas, who go on garden centre websites . . . Every single individual in this country, people who would never dream of doing us harm."

Clegg also put himself on the side of civil liberties by defending our right to be, "free to offend each other in an open society", when asked about the illustrations of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. "We have laws which do inhibit people from inciting violence and hatred, but we protect the right for people to say things which other people might not like."

In a speech later today, the Deputy Prime Minister is expected to say:

The irony appears to be lost on some politicians who say in one breath that they will defend freedom of expression and then, in the next, advocate a huge encroachment on the freedom of all British citizens.

Let me be really clear, we have every right to invade the privacy of terrorists and those we think want to do us harm – but we should not equate that with invading the privacy of every single person in the UK. They are not the same thing.

The Snoopers' Charter is not targeted. It's not proportionate. It's not harmless. It would be a new and dramatic shift in the relationship between the state and the individual.

The Snooper's Charter became a symbol of the "red lines" that the Lib Dems have been able to draw in office, and therefore their ability to temper the Tories' worst excesses by being in coalition. This is how the Lib Dems are attempting to appeal to the electorate ahead of May – a heart for the Tories, and a spine for Labour. Perhaps this fresh privacy debate will do Clegg a favour in reminding the public of his ability to counter the ruling party.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496