Real issues arise out of the Snowden affair, but British security laws keep us safe without intruding on citizens' freedoms

Simon Jenkins: Why the silence in Britain?

Image
Edward Snowden in Moscow. 'It is not surprising that there has been more debate about Snowden and Prism in the United States than in the UK.' Photograph: Itar-Tass
I usually am impressed by Simon Jenkins, but his polemic in today's Guardian on the Edward Snowden affair was well below par and full of howlers. If his emails are like that he can relax. No intelligence agency will waste its time trying to read them.

He repeats the original accusation that GCHQ used the Americans' Prism programmeto "circumvent" British law. If he had done his homework he would be aware that the intelligence and security committee, which I chair, has investigated that very claim, seen GCHQ's secret files, and been able to report to parliament that GCHQ had legal warrants from the secretary of state in every case.

He praises the Americans for having laws that protect privacy unless there is "due process", and then suggests that Britain has no such requirement. Absolute rubbish. Our intelligence agencies have to go through a similar lengthy legal procedure before they can examine any British citizen's email or phone conversations - and only get permission if it is deemed necessary to stop terrorism or prevent serious crime. Such warrants are also subject to retrospective inspection by the intelligence commissioners, who are independent judges.

He accuses the US of "aping the totalitarian regimes it professed to guard against" in its collection of intelligence data. Does he believe that there are Russian and Chinese judges and parliamentary committees that are independent of those countries' governments and empowered to examine the secret files of their intelligence agencies, as we have in both the US and the UK?

His finest diatribe is to accuse "parliament, the courts and most of the media", as well as "Britons generally", of being indifferent to privacy and liberty because they refuse to treat GCHQ, MI6 and MI5 as public enemies. The whole nation, it appears, has got it wrong. Only Simon Jenkins and the Guardian care about these things.

And then Sir Simon (as he is actually called) says it is all the fault of "the British establishment", which will not "get excited" on these matters. Sir Simon, you are part of the British establishment, as I am reminded every time I read your excellent contributions to Country Life.

There are real issues that do arise out of the Snowden affair, in Britain as elsewhere. Even if the intelligence agencies always act within the law, it must be right for that law to be reviewed from time to time to see whether the safeguards are adequate. Sometimes they are not. The intelligence and security committee criticised the government's original proposals for closed proceedings in civil actions as being wider than was necessary. We have criticised some of the provisions in the proposed communications data bill.

There has also been a crucial need for greater powers for the committee. That has now been conceded by the government. As of this autumn, the intelligence agencies can no longer refuse it any information it seeks. We now have the statutory power to investigate MI6, MI5 and GCHQ operations, which we did not have in the past. Our budget is being almost doubled to £1.3m and our staff are being greatly strengthened.

It is not surprising that there has been more debate about Snowden and Prism in the United States than in the UK. Snowden is an American who worked with the National Security Agency. Prism is a US intelligence capability, not a British one.

On Tempora, it has been well known that the fibre optic cables that carry a significant proportion of the world's communications pass close to the British coastline and could provide intelligence opportunities. The reality is that the British public are well aware that its intelligence agencies have neither the time nor the remotest interest in the emails or telephone conversations of well over 99% of the population who are neither potential terrorists nor serious criminals. Modern computer technologies do permit the separation of those that are of interest from the vast majority that are not.

Our system is not perfect. There are occasions when the intelligence obtained may be of such little value as not to justify the diminution in privacy associated with obtaining it.

But I have yet to hear of any other country, either democratic or authoritarian, that has both significant intelligence agencies and a more effective and extensive system of independent oversight than the UK and the US. If you know any, Sir Simon, tell us who they are.


Comment: The other side of this Guardian Rifkind/Jenkins "feud" can be read on SoTT here.