Liblink: Nick Clegg “I share the concerns about David Miranda’s detention”

You can’t accuse Nick Clegg of hiding away. Now that he’s returned from holiday, his first direct public comment on the Miranda detention and Guardian files controversy comes in a column in that paper.

First, where the Liberal Democrats are coming from:

Liberal Democrats believe government must tread the fine line between liberty and security very carefully, and are not easily persuaded by a government minister asserting: “Just trust me.” So now that we are in government, we have been vigilant in ensuring the right decisions are made: scrutinising and challenging the assumptions of security experts, even as we give them our wholehearted support in their aim to keep the public safe.

And a bit of a “by their deeds you shall know them” swipe at Labour:

One point on which both parties have been united is this: seeking to unpick the worst excesses of Labour’s authoritarian legislation. From restoring rights to protest, ending the detention of children in immigration cases, scrapping ID cards and limiting some terrorism powers, we have turned the clock back on their biggest mistakes. It has been bizarre to see Yvette Cooper parrot concerns about civil liberties while representing a party hard-wired to trample on those liberties while in office. People are right to ask questions about the detention of David Miranda for nine hours this week. But Cooper voted for powers to detain suspects for 90 days – 2,160 hours. Her outrage is almost comical.

On the issue of the destruction of the data held by the Guardian:

 I believed at the time, and still do, that it was entirely reasonable for the government to seek to get leaked documents back from the Guardian or have them destroyed. Along with the information the newspaper had published, it had information that put national security and lives at risk. It was right for us to want that information destroyed. The Guardian had decided not to publish this information: not a single sentence was censored from the newspaper as a result of the information being destroyed.

And on Miranda’s detention:

I was not consulted on the plans to detain him before it happened, and I acknowledge the many concerns raised about the use of schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for these purposes. There is obviously a material difference between agreeing by mutual consent that files will be destroyed, and forcibly detaining someone. Terrorism powers should be used proportionately. That is why it is immensely important that the independent reviewer of terrorism powers, David Anderson QC, reports rapidly on whether this was a legitimate use of the Terrorism Act, and whether that legislation should be adjusted. Already, we are planning to limit the schedule 7 powers. We consulted last year on a wide set of improvements – such as reducing the maximum period of detention to six hours and allowing anyone detained for more than 60 minutes access to a lawyer. This autumn we will be taking a bill through parliament to implement these changes. In my view, if Anderson provides a clearly justified recommendation to restrict these powers even further, we should seek to do so in this bill.

There may be some disquiet amongst Liberal Democrats about the tone of Clegg’s last paragraph, though, who are likely to bristle at the equation between what he calls a “libertarian” approach which veers towards the illegal:

So a balance must be struck between a libertarian “anything goes” approach, which sees new technology as a way to escape from the reach of the law, and an authoritarian view that sees technology as a new opportunity to intrude into our lives.

They may be reassured by the last sentence, though:

Technology will continue to evolve and governments worldwide will try to evolve with it. As long as Liberal Democrats are in government, I will ensure that our individual rights are not cast aside in the name of collective security.

You can read the whole article here.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/35877 for Twitter and emails.

8 Comments

  • Not a very good attempt at damage limitation by Clegg.

  • Stuart Mitchell 24th Aug '13 - 12:40pm

    Regarding Clegg’s criticism of Yvette Cooper, it would be interesting to visit a parallel universe where Clegg was still in opposition and a Labour government was sending officials round to newspaper offices to destroy hard drives, and hear what he had to say about it.

  • The final sentence of the article reads..” As long as Liberal Democrats are in government, I will ensure that our individual rights are not cast aside in the name of collective security”

    So the secret courts thing didn’t put collective security over an individual’s right to see the evidence on which a decision regarding them will be taken then Nick? I’m afraid just like Cooper there is more than a little hypocrisy on show here…

  • Whenever an uncomfortable situation arises for Nick Clegg he likes to reminisce about the Labour Party. The year is 2013, he is the Deputy Prime Minister so deal with it.

  • Tony Dawson 24th Aug '13 - 2:11pm

    “we have been vigilant in ensuring the right decisions are made: scrutinising and challenging the assumptions of security experts,”

    Not before government action is taken, apparently. Not only was Nick Clegg not consulted before this action but it would appear that there is no obvious Coalition process for determining executive actions (as opposed to legislative proposals) in this as in many other sensitive areas.

    “It wuzzn’t me, guv’nor” is just not good enough. The Cabinet Office responsibility is the responsibility to co-ordinate government action, which clearly includes the responsibility to ensure that actions of the Coalition government are Coalition Government actions.

  • We need to trust Nick. Don’t you people know? Liberals no longer believe in thinking for ourselves, no, lets just trust Nick, after all, he delivered on tuition fees. Anyone who disagrees just needs to grow up. This is real wordl, real politics, we can’t stop the world, party of government etc etc.

  • I agree with Stuart Mitchell, and I’m not happy about it.

  • “I believed at the time, and still do, that it was entirely reasonable for the government to seek to get leaked documents back from the Guardian or have them destroyed. Along with the information the newspaper had published, it had information that put national security and lives at risk. It was right for us to want that information destroyed.”

    My problems with this statement are these:
    1. whose documents were these ? if NC is referencing Snowden’s files, then the documents are from the US. Why then does NC say “get these documents back” as if they are/were ours?
    2. given all the layers of secrecy involved, how can the assertion “information that put national security and lives at risk” be tested ? A cynic might wonder if a more accurate assertion might have been “information that would embarrass the Government”.
    3. “It was right for us to want that information destroyed”. NC shows a lack of understanding about where ‘information’ exists. More importantly he seems to think that destroying ‘information’ means that what the information refers to can remain secret. Why is something SO secret ALL reference to it must be destroyed ?
    4. NC earlier says “[he is not] easily persuaded by a government minister asserting: “Just trust me.'”. Funny then that he expects the British public to just ‘trust’ his assertions.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Blake 25th Oct - 9:34am
    Strange that there wasn't even a Lib Dem candidate in the Oban election in a parliamentary seat we hold.
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 25th Oct - 9:32am
    Colin Greens are growing rapidly. SNP are growing. Plaid Cymru is growing. Ukip is growing. I would say that it is the centre which should...
  • User AvatarColin 25th Oct - 9:31am
    @JonTilley " It is not clear what political facts you base your assessment on." Her party is not in freefall or heading for a very...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 25th Oct - 9:31am
    John Tilley After the General Election in a few weeks time it is obvious that you do not want a continuation of the Conservative dominated...
  • User AvatarHugh p 25th Oct - 9:25am
    It is proper to note that in the Scottish referendum Aberdeenshire voted NO by a substantial majority, so a Lib Dem loss of Gordon next...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 25th Oct - 9:18am
    John Tilley Let me take what you are saying to an absurd limit. Suppose there was a political party which said the answer to all...