Politics
The House Article | Parliament needs better national security briefings
Screens showing shipping in the Middle East at the UK Maritime Trade Organisation in Portsmouth (PA Images/Alamy)
4 min read
Foreign and security policy are likely to play larger roles in the UK’s national politics for years to come.
The current Gulf war is only the latest sign of a deteriorating global multilateral order. Conflict persists in Ukraine and Sudan, while an unstable American hegemon seeks to enforce a new Monroe doctrine in Venezuela, Cuba and Greenland. These are symptoms of intensifying global power politics unrestrained by law or treaty.
Closer to home, Russia aims to divide Europe and test Nato’s commitment to the collective security of smaller nations. The UK is regarded by the Russian strategic elite as ‘enemy number one’, being one of the leading states in Europe with the will to damage its objectives, as in Ukraine. This long-term challenge from a hostile state in the UK’s neighbourhood will mean increasing attempts to damage and weaken its society through cyber-attacks, physical sabotage and information warfare.
In contrast to the broad foreign policy consensus in Parliament through much of the Cold War and decades since, parties are increasingly voicing divergent views. The Liberal Democrats press for an embrace of Europe, and the Conservatives tilt toward Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Canzuk). On defence too, troop deployments to Greenland, Ukraine and a new all-British nuclear deterrent have been advocated by the Liberal Democrats, and reform of Nato by the Greens.
While scrutiny and advocacy for alternatives are the constitutional duty of opposition parties in Parliament, weak domestic consensus can hobble execution of national security strategy.
Without broad parliamentary and public support, governments may struggle to adequately fund resource intensive priorities, deploy the armed forces, or maintain enduring alliances. Polarised political discourse is also ripe territory for exploitation by external actors to increase internal discord through information warfare campaigns.
A FTSE 100 executive is likely to have access to better intelligence and geopolitical analysis than most parliamentarians, courtesy of London’s thriving boutique private security firms.
National security briefings for parliamentarians on threats to the UK would allow for better scrutiny of preparedness, debate from an informed perspective and potentially greater consensus. Currently, only opposition leaders are briefed on ‘Privy Council terms’ on an ad-hoc basis and usually limited to specific incidents.
Select committees should function as the main vehicle for scrutiny of foreign and security policy, yet rely on government candour rather than access to information as of right. The Commons Defence Committee faced official barriers to assessing the UK’s defence readiness, while government continues to refuse requests from the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy to hear evidence from the National Security Adviser. Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace alleges excessive secrecy on the part of government, so it can “own the narrative of the threat” and contain political and public pressure on the Treasury for greater defence resources.
A FTSE 100 executive is likely to have access to better intelligence and geopolitical analysis than most parliamentarians
The US Congress halted the Trump administration’s plans to withdraw all American troops from Europe by 2027, whose members all have access to classified briefings by right of office.
In Estonia and Finland, as well as benefiting from published public threat assessments from intelligence agencies, nearly all legislators will have participated in a government national security course on threats and policies. In the Polish Sejm, members hand in phones before closed sessions of the whole chamber on Russian subversion activities, held at the request of government.
Parliament could receive better information in several ways. As in other Nato states, the Defence Committee should work at a ‘secret’ level, as it did in the Cold War. When the heads of MI5 and MI6 deliver public threat lectures, a closed version could be arranged for Parliament in Westminster Hall, alongside the chief of the defence staff. Members’ libraries could work with government to arrange access to ad-hoc briefings at other times. Without an ability to fairly scrutinise or build trust and knowledge, the national strategy and resourcing required for an era of increasing threats may falter.
Robin Potter is an academy associate at Chatham House
You must be logged in to post a comment Login