PMQs: Coalition start to show divisions over terror powers

Despite painstakingly non-confrontational exchanges on new terror powers between the Prime Minister David Cameron and the opposition leader Ed Miliband at PMQs today, public divisions are beginning to arise. Not between Labour and the Conservatives—you'd struggle to slot a passport between them on the issue—but between the Conservatives and their coalition partners the Lib Dems and, to a lesser extent, within the Conservative party itself.

In the chamber, David Cameron took us back over the new powers to counter the threat of terrorism in the UK which he announced on Monday—you can read all about them on this blog. This morning's COBR meeting on the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff has resulted in little immediate change here. But Cameron was notably buoyant on two points. First, he reiterated his strong support for the recommendations of the terrorism watchdog David Anderson, who wants the government to combine powers to exclude potential terror suspects from certain areas with powers to relocate them if necessary. Second, his only comment on the great running debate from Monday's announcement—whether it will be possible for the government to do as it wishes and prevent UK nationals aligned with terrorist groups from returning home—was very positive. “The short answer is I believe it is legally permissable,” he said. The government continues to take legal advice on this.

Ed Miliband did little to challenge Cameron, instead gently probing him on his plans in the manner of a breakfast TV interviewer—though it should be noted that without his probing, perhaps Cameron would not have been so unequivocal. Cameron repeatedly thanked him for his remarks, and the tone in which they were made.

Clegg, throughout, sat silent, his expression even more hangdog than usual. But, following the session, the Lib Dems issued a hasty statement clarifying the party's position and the status of negotiations. On excluding British nationals, a spokesperson said: “This is a very legally complicated issue and needs to be examined very closely.” Not a world away from Cameron's position, but significantly less positive than the actual words he said. On relocation powers, the spokesperson said that, while the party respected David Anderson, the issue was “still under discussion in government.”

This doesn't necessarily mean that either option is less likely to happen, but it seems clear that there may have been one or two raised voices during negotiations.

Otherwise, PMQs was fairly unremarkable, but it is a little noticeable how much public pressure Cameron is under from unruly Conservative backbench MPs. James Gray (North Wiltshire) stood up and asked in an imposing voice whether Cameron was going to allow a full two-day debate on the various crises affecting international politics. He looked slightly put out when Cameron responded calmly that there would be a full day's debate next Wednesday. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) asked about the risk of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) being misused by other states, in light of the case of Ashya King, where a warrant was issued and subsequently dropped. Cameron slightly awkwardly tried to bring the debate back to the issue of terrorism, saying the EAW was necessary in cases where a “terrorist has attacked our country and is on the run through Europe.”

The biggest laugh of the day came following a question by Karl Turner (Kingston Upon Hull East), the Labour MP, who asked if Cameron was expecting any other “birthday surprises,” given his party's byelection fight against Tory defector Douglas Carswell falls on 9th October, the Prime Minister's Birthday.

Said Cameron with a wry smile: “I'm sure I'll be getting all sorts of pleasant surprises on my birthday, and please don't spoil them by letting me know what they are.”