Who said what to whom?
In a recent speech on privacy at the Royal United Services Institute, Nick Clegg said that in future he wants the Intelligence and Security Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition and to meet in public rather than in private.
What does it mean?
Select Committees have become stronger and bolder in the past few years, just look at Margaret Hodge who has gained a formidable reputation in her role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals are designed to make sure that the body that oversees the security services displays the same robust attitude.
What could go wrong?
The traditional argument for carefully managed scrutiny has been that, without it the security services cannot be expected to comply. If there was any hint that the Chair of the Committee might be looking for opportunities to embarrass the government then the intelligence agencies would be in an impossible position, required either to withhold information or compromise their operational effectiveness. The recent committee hearing where the three agency heads appeared together in public was only possible because, as Clegg put it, the questions put to them had been “pre-cooked”. A “raw grilling”, like that which takes place in the US, is an entirely different proposition. The biggest risk to the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment is that the security services will defeat it behind the scenes. Or, that they will press for the new Chair to be a former Home Office or Foreign Office Minister who is sympathetic to their position. Either way the promise of greater transparency and scrutiny is frustrated.
When will we know?
Nick Clegg didn’t suggest a timeline for implementing these proposed changes. They are unlikely to be supported by a sufficient number within the party of his Coalition partner. So, are likely to be manifesto commitments for the 2015 general election, providing a basis for negotiation in any future coalition agreement.
Commitment rating: 2
This commitment has better prospects in a Lib-Lab coalition than in the current one, though even Labour’s approach is far from clear. Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary, also spoke on internet security and privacy last week, but she did not make any suggestions regarding strengthening the role of the Committee.
In a recent speech on privacy at the Royal United Services Institute, Nick Clegg said that in future he wants the Intelligence and Security Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition and to meet in public rather than in private.
What does it mean?
Select Committees have become stronger and bolder in the past few years, just look at Margaret Hodge who has gained a formidable reputation in her role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals are designed to make sure that the body that oversees the security services displays the same robust attitude.
What could go wrong?
The traditional argument for carefully managed scrutiny has been that, without it the security services cannot be expected to comply. If there was any hint that the Chair of the Committee might be looking for opportunities to embarrass the government then the intelligence agencies would be in an impossible position, required either to withhold information or compromise their operational effectiveness. The recent committee hearing where the three agency heads appeared together in public was only possible because, as Clegg put it, the questions put to them had been “pre-cooked”. A “raw grilling”, like that which takes place in the US, is an entirely different proposition. The biggest risk to the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment is that the security services will defeat it behind the scenes. Or, that they will press for the new Chair to be a former Home Office or Foreign Office Minister who is sympathetic to their position. Either way the promise of greater transparency and scrutiny is frustrated.
When will we know?
Nick Clegg didn’t suggest a timeline for implementing these proposed changes. They are unlikely to be supported by a sufficient number within the party of his Coalition partner. So, are likely to be manifesto commitments for the 2015 general election, providing a basis for negotiation in any future coalition agreement.
Commitment rating: 2
This commitment has better prospects in a Lib-Lab coalition than in the current one, though even Labour’s approach is far from clear. Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary, also spoke on internet security and privacy last week, but she did not make any suggestions regarding strengthening the role of the Committee.
