Parliamentarians have questioned the Government’s refusal of its requests to scrutinise key aspects of the UK’s national security, in correspondence now published.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy had asked to hear evidence from the new National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell, as part of its work scrutinising that government role. Every previous NSA has appeared before the committee since the position was set up in 2010, the committee points out.
However Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said the Government had not judged the request appropriate, citing “longstanding practice” for evidence to be given by Ministers and Officials rather than serving Special Advisers. Unusually, Mr Powell was appointed to the role of NSA as a Special Adviser rather than a civil servant independent of government. Committee Chair Matt Western, Labour MP for Warwick, said the committee “does not agree” with the Government’s assertion. He cites the Government’s own Osmotherly Rules, which state that the presumption is for Ministers to agree a request for evidence from any named official, including special advisers.
Mr Western also says that Powell is “not an ordinary Special Adviser”, but rather is “at the forefront of discussions with international counterparts”. These discussions include meeting US President Donald Trump’s own National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and attending Washington DC with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer last week.
“The Committee is unanimous in its opinion that the role of National Security Adviser should be subject to direct Parliamentary scrutiny,” the Western writes as chair, “regardless of the method by which its incumbent has been appointed.”
In the letter, Western also rejects the Government’s refusal to continue sharing agendas for National Security Council meetings. These agendas have been provided to the Committee by previous Governments since 2013. He writes: “If the Government intends to diverge from this long-established practice, I would be grateful if you could explain what has changed since the last Parliament, and how preventing this Committee from having this essential insight corresponds with your statement that the Government is ‘actively pursuing greater transparency with Parliament’?”
Matt Western said: “Last week the Prime Minister told the public that their defence and security was the number one priority of this Government. But if committees like ours cannot hear from the National Security Adviser, and the Government is no longer willing to share the National Security Council agendas, how can we assess whether he is making the right progress?
The Government’s position appears to depart from convention. Given the public’s heightened concerns over our own security, this sets a worrying precedent for avoiding public scrutiny on a crucial area. I encourage the Government to rethink its position, and I remind it that I will raise this issue by alternative means if necessary.”
