For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself.

First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view.

Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret services.

Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?" asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal.

As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's about it in terms of any debate.

The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being reincarnated as an olive.