Prime Ministers abuse the
power entrusted to them if their actions are motivated by self-interest or that
of the political parties they represent, especially if they do so at the expense
of the interests of the state and its
people.
On Monday morning November 4th, I considered the difference
between the actions of Prime Minister Tony Blair in relation to the Iraq war
and those of the Prime Minister Boris Johnston since his selection.
Midway during his period of
office, Mr Blair used the resources of the state join the President of the
United States of North America in the invasion of Iraq, a war which led to the
death in service of 179 members of the British forces, some 200 wounded and at least
150000 Iraqi people killed with some estimates two and three times this number.
I am certain Mr Blair sincerely believed that it he was acting in the best
interests of not just the British state but of humanity in general in helping
to establish a new global order which would lead to peace and prosperity. I believe
subsequent events have proved he was wrong, but I also believe he was not
motivated by self interest or that of the Labour Party.
On the morning of November 4th,
I went to see Official Secrets at the Cineworld in Newcastle, a film which tells
the true story of a 28 year old married woman, Katherine Gun, who admitted to
her employers, the British Digital communication spy centre, GCHQ, that she was
responsible for the Observer publishing a memorandum from the United States Intelligence
and security service which asked for help to blackmail members of the United States
Security Council so they would give legal authority to the invasion of Iraq. At her trial for breaking the Official Secrets
Acts, the British government offered no
evidence because it did not want the fact that at the time the request was made
public, its chief legal advisor had told the Prime Minister that British participation
in war would be illegal unless it was proved that Iraq still possessed weapons
of mass civilian extermination which it was known the regime had previously
used on some of its people. It was only after the memorandum became public that
the Attorney General went subsequently to the United States where he was persuaded
to change his legal advice.
The film will be available soon
on DVD, unfortunately the book written my Mrs Gun is out of print and second hand
copies cost over £75 although Marcia and Thomas Mitchel have republished for £8.99
or less, their book with the same titled as Catherine’s, “The Spy who tried to
stop a War.” Richard J Aldrich published
in 2010 a 666 page history of GCHQ and its functions and covers the Iraq War
with the facts of the involvement of Mrs Gun mentioned on pages 521-523. The
book originally cost £30 in hardback and second hand copies are available
online for £4 including postage.
The film was of special
interest to me because Mrs Gunn asked Liberty for help, and Shami Chakrabarti,
now Labour’s Shadow Attorney General, arranged for the brilliant human rights
lawyer, Ben Emmerson, to represent Mrs Gun in court. In 1998, a civil servant
at the office of the Attorney General, who
became Permanent Secretary at the Department of Justice, provided me with
written advice which led to contacting Liberty and my wish to help 57 new victims
of child abuse when in the care of Sunderland Council, in addition to those
previously identified, and my position taken up by an international legal firm,
pro bono with Counsel’s opinion by a former head of the Bar Council, also pro
bono.
Ahead of the release of the film,
Tim Adams of the Guardian interviewed Katherine Gun. It is formally recorded at
her arrest by Special Branch, she drew attention that she was employed by the
Government to work for the British
people and that her function was not to gather intelligence so that the government could lie to the
British people in order to go to war.
Whether one is a public paid elected
government official, government employee, or a private citizen, deliberately breaking
the law, whatever justification or
motive, there is likely to be some form of penalty, unless a Public Interest
defence can be established. That penalty is often paid by family and relatives
and in the instance of Mrs Gun, her husband
was nearly deported in an act of political spite. Despite legislation designed
to encourage and protect Whistleblowers the potentially negative life-long consequences,
and in some instances, life threatening consequences, of going against the
state and its laws, in the public interest, should not be underestimated
.
What we do and what we say lives
with us and those with whom we say and do for eternity, although since the digital
age, it is possible for anyone, anywhere anytime with the technology to record
everything we say and do and also to change what is recorded. A good political example of this occurred on
November 5th when enthusiastic members of the Tory Party election campaign
misrepresented the response of Sir Kier Starmer to a question by Piers Morgan
about Labour’s Brexit policy, who immediately
pointed out the attempted political deception, and social and mainstream media
then showed the Party political representative alongside the truth.
When I was appointed Director
of Social Services, South Tyneside, one national newspaper carried the headline,
“Ex Con gets top job.” It was several years before the Chairman of the Social Services
Committee told me which of his Labour political colleagues, and why, had leaked
the information I provided the Council, having been advised in 1970 by a senior
officer of the Home Office Children’s Inspectorate both to mention my prison
and Satyagraha direct action experience and to end my wider political activities that had arisen from my role as
Parliamentary officer for the Association of Child Care Officers, writing the
first 100 editions of Parliament and Social Work and chairing when Vice
President of the Association what is
known the Blacklisting committee set up on the advice of two Labour Party Home
Secretary, James Callaghan, subsequent Prime Minister, and Roy Jenkins, subsequently one of the Leaders of the Social
Democratic Party. The formal records of my involvement are part of the records
of the Association held at the University of Warwick.
Not available for public scrutiny
are the records held by British, United States and Russian Intelligence which substantiate
that although I was a Member of Lord Russell’s Committee
100, worked for six weeks as an
assistant organiser for the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War and co-author
of the anti-Polaris campaign march from London on Easter Monday 1961 to Holy
Loch Scotland at Whitsun, where there was land and sea direct action which made
international news, I was openly against authoritarian state communism,
against the destructive enterism of the political groups such as the Socialist
Labour League with their commitment to retaining the “workers” bomb, and that I
had demonstrated outside the Russian embassy over one weekend, on my own during
Friday night, accompanied by two policemen who went back to their station when all
the lights went out in the embassy and traffic in Kensington Palace Gardens stopped. In 1971 Sir Keith Joseph, the dinner
guest at the conference of the Family and Child Care section of the new British Association of Social Workers
which I chaired, asked why I did not
move to Russia to work when I told him of my different political and social perspective, I like to believe I convinced
him that come the revolution we were both listed for elimination, as in 1973,
despite the national headline, he confirmed my appointment as a local authority
chief officer, one of only two of the
5000 such officers who had been to prison before their appointment. The precedent
had been set by world war conscientious objector Denis Allen, the Children’s
Officer of East Sussex. In 1979 Mrs Thatcher set up a system to prevent such
appointments.
On November 4th, I
returned home to watch the election of a new Speaker to replace the
controversial John Bercow, unaware that in the House of Lords there was short
debate seeking an explanation why Prime
Minister, Boris Johnson had used his personal veto to prevent a report by
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee being published despite clearance
by British security services.
The 3.30pm debate was
initiated as a Private Notice Question by Lord Anderson of Ipswich who asked “Her
Majesty’s Government why the Prime Minister has not provided confirmation
within the usual 10 days that the Intelligence and Security Committee of
Parliament’s Special Report on Russia may be published, and whether that
confirmation will be provided today so that the report can be laid before
Parliament in advance of Dissolution. David Anderson, a lawyer and QC had been
the official reviewer of legislation on Terrorism 2011-2017. In 2015 his report,
a Question of Trust on his review of Investigatory Powers Act.
Earl Howe (Con), as did a Minister
in the House of Commons, on the afternoon of November 5th, gave the
kind of response which showed political
advisers and civil servants as their most skilled worst. He said“My Lords, reports from the
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament must go through a number of
processes before publication. Those processes apply to the report to which the
noble Lord refers in his Question. The Prime Minister will respond to the
committee’s request to publish this report in due course, once the usual
processes have been completed.”
Baron
Davis Anderson drew attention that “The Minister’s response echoes two
unsatisfactory explanations aired in recent days for this irregular state of
affairs. The first is that redaction remains to be completed. This report has
already been through the full redaction process with the agencies and the
Cabinet Office. In the ISC’s experience, prime ministerial confirmation has
always been a formality. The second explanation is that time is needed for the
Government to respond, but the Government’s aim and usual practice, as set out
in a 2014 memorandum of understanding, is to respond not when a report is
published but within 60 days. This unjustified delay undermines the ISC and, I
am afraid, invites suspicion of the Government and their motives. Will the
Minister advise No. 10 to think again?
The
Minister presented the agreed prepared response. “My Lords, I must correct the noble
Lord in several respects. The length of time for which this report has been
with the Government is not at all unusual. It is one of a number of ISC reports
which the Government are currently considering. In this instance, the
Government are following the standard process which applies before every
publication. A memorandum of understanding with the committee sets out the
relationship between it and the Government. This does not include a timetable
for the Government to clear such a report for publication and there is no set
timeline for a response. Nor is such a deadline set in governing legislation.”
Appreciating the official position was nonsense which no
one believed he added,” Having said all
that, I realise that the subject of this report is a matter of particular
public interest and have no doubt that noble Lords’ comments will not be lost
on those in No. 10.”
Lord
Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) a supporter of the Iraq War and the actions of Tony
Blair and a member of Labour’s Cabinet office Intelligence and Security
Committee 2007-2010, and of the joint House
of Parliament Intelligence and security Committee since it was formed in 2010,
asked “My Lords, will the Minister confirm that MI5, SIS and GCHQ are all
willing for the report to be published? A question where he knew the answer was yes.
Earl
Howe My Lords, I simply cannot comment on those matters to which Lord Foulkes interjected “Why not?”
Earl
Howe continued to stonewall, “In due course, the Government will release the
report for publication, but the processes must be gone through first.”
Lord
Wallace of Saltaire (LD) then explained the difference between what the government were saying and what was in the national press. “My Lords, the
Minister will be aware that there have been press reports in the past two or
three days on this. There have been what looks to be official selective leaks
saying that actually, the report exonerates everyone regarding Russian money. However, the Guardian this morning states that
the report deals with allegations that, “Russian money has flowed into British
politics in general and the Conservative party”. Edward Lucas in the Times this
morning reports that he understood clearly that the report was on track towards
imminent publication last Thursday and has since been blocked by No. 10. Given
those reports, which are damaging for the Conservative Party at the start of an
election campaign, does the Minister not think it extremely wise to ensure that
the report is published as soon as possible, before it becomes more of a
campaign issue?
The
Lord Earl Howe continued “My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s comments. The governing
Act—the Justice and Security Act 2013—makes it clear that the impact of
releasing potentially sensitive or sensitive information needs to be considered
carefully by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. That process
cannot be rushed; I say that with some emphasis.”
Lord
Ricketts (CB) a former National Security adviser who gave evidence to the Iraq
Inquiry said , “My Lords, I have had the privilege of appearing before the ISC
many times in my career; it is always a bracing experience. Does the Minister
accept that the committee is widely renowned for the quality of its judgments
and the value of its advice? Does he further accept the central point: that the
ISC is the only Select Committee of Parliament that requires the Government’s
agreement to publish its reports? When Ministers say that they need time to
respond, they miss the point that what is being asked for is publication of the
report; the response can take its time. There is a clear public interest in the
national security implications of Russia’s adversarial conduct.
Earl
Howe, then revealed part of the reason why Boris Johnson personally vetoed
publication. “I concur completely with the noble Lord’s points. The ISC does its
job in an exemplary way and has been chaired exemplarily by my right honourable
friend Dominic Grieve. Its reports are thorough, in depth and substantive.
However, I must depart from the noble Lord in his implication that there is a
special case here for accelerating the process of publication.
Dominic
Grieve the former conservative party attorney general until sacked by David
Cameron was appointed as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in
2015. Prime Minister Mrs May took six months to re-establish the Committee
after losing her parliamentary majority in 2017. It is noteworthy that Earl Howe
referred to Dominic Grieve as my honourable friend after Boris Johnson had
effectively expelled him from the Party.
Lord
Morris of Aberavon (Lab), a former Attorney General “My Lords, can the Minister
say whether the report will be published before the election?
Earl
Howe said, “ On the timescale, I can go no further than I already have. (which
meant no, but I have been ordered not to say so)
Baroness
Altmann (Con) told the Earl his reposes on behalf of the Prime Minister were
unacceptable.
“My
Lords, will my noble friend take back to his department and to the Prime
Minister the clear strength of feeling across this House—and the sense of
urgency, given that we face Dissolution tomorrow—that the report should be
published? Indeed, as far as the House has been informed, there is an urgency
to this matter. The report does not require consideration; all it requires is
publication. Everything else has been arranged.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish
Town (Lab) the deputy leader of Labour peers in the House of Lords and who hold
a dress in Public and Social administration from Durham university was direct .
“My Lords, what has the Prime Minister got to hide?
Earl Howe My Lords, I regret
the implication in that question: the noble Baroness is implying that the Prime
Minister does have something to hide, and I repudiate that suggestion in
emphatic terms. The normal processes are being exercised and the report will be
published in due course.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
the former head of the Civil Service for ten years. “My Lords, did not the
process of clearing this report start on 28 March, seven months ago? Only the
final stage of its being cleared by the Prime Minister started in October.
Also, is not the point of the report that it is relevant to an upcoming general
election? The Government should make a particular effort to ensure that it is
in the public domain. Please will the Minister ask No. 10 to think again?
Lord Tyler (LD) persisted, “My
Lords, the Minister has said that the report is to be published “in due
course”. Can he give your Lordships’ House an absolute assurance that that does
not mean that it will be kept back until after polling day? As the noble Lord,
Lord Butler, has rightly said, it would be outrageous if the public were not
given the reassurance that we hope is in the report, long before polling day.
Does the Minister recall that in the Queen’s Speech, the Government committed
themselves to, “protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in
the United Kingdom”?—[Official Report, 14/10/19; col. 3.] Can he think of
anything more important than to reassure the nation at this stage that our
electoral system is not to be undermined by foreign interference?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) then
contributed, AS Toby Harris he chaired the Social Services Committee of the
Association of Metropolitan authorities in the 1980 which supported the privatisation
of community care which I opposed and on before of South Tyneside Council gave
evidence to the House of Commons Health Select Committee, and against the immediate
of the new Children Act, in part because
of concern about the state of local authority child care services because of
genericism introduced in 1971 where South Tyneside agreed to create a children’s
department with the social service department administrative structure after I
became the Director of Social Services.
Baron Harris said, My Lords,
the Minister is being very careful in his choice of words. He is conflating the
process by which government as a whole has to consider the report, and that
includes a process by which the various agencies have the opportunity to ask
for various things to be redacted. That is widely understood, so unless the noble
Earl is able to confirm that that is not the case, those agencies have agreed
what redactions are necessary. Given that, the only item remaining is the Prime
Minister’s approval and therefore the only issue is this: has the Prime
Minister not had the time over the past fortnight, or is there something in the
report which he feels would be embarrassing if put in the public domain now?
At last Earl Howe clearly
stated the position “My Lords, no. This matter rests entirely with the Prime
Minister”
On Tuesday afternoon, November
5h as I reported in my previous article, I watched the proceedings in the House
of Commons to witness the unique passing of legislation to enable immediate and
longer term Redress for the victim’s child abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, and stayed listening for the urgent question
asked by Dominic Grieve
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind) (Urgent
Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on
his refusal to give clearance to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and
Security Committee of Parliament.
The Minister in the House of
Commons selected for his ability to stonewall and keep a straight face, was Christopher Pincher, the Minister of State
for Europe and the Americas and Deputy Chief Whip for his Party. He has a good majority
in the constituency of Tamworth of over 12000 so his perf
ormance merits promotion to a shadow
secretary of state in the next Parliament.
“I would like to answer my
right hon. and learned Friend’s question regarding publication of the ISC’s
report on Russia. The ISC provides invaluable scrutiny and oversight of the
work of the intelligence community to Parliament, so I am grateful to it for
conducting this timely inquiry into our work on Russia. Russia’s reckless
behaviour in Salisbury and Amesbury shows that, now more than ever, we cannot
afford to be complacent about the Russian threat.
Because the ISC deals with
matters of national security and intelligence, its reports always contain
sensitive information, so it is entirely right that they go through an
intensive security review before publication. This report is one of a number of
ISC reports that the Government are currently considering. The current length
of time that this report has been with the Government is not unusual, as this
has averaged around six weeks for reports published in recent years, and three
to four weeks for a response to be forthcoming from the Government.
For example, the details of
the counter-terrorism review following the attacks and the 2017-18 annual
report were sent together to No. 10 on 12 October 2018. We were asked to
respond 10 days later on 26 October. We responded on 8 November, and then the
checked, proofread report was published on 22 November. Similarly, the details
of the detainee’s report were sent to No. 10 on 10 May 2018. Again, the ISC
asked for a response within 10 working days on 24 May. We responded on 30 May,
and then the checked, proofread report was published on 12 June. In both cases,
the process took approximately six weeks, because by law it is imperative that
the process is thorough.
In accordance with the Justice
and Security Act 2013, the impact of releasing sensitive information must be
carefully considered by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. We
cannot rush the process and risk undermining our national security. There is no
set timeline within the memorandum of understanding with the Committee for the
Government to clear such reports for publication, and under the same memorandum
there is no set timeline for a response, nor is such a deadline set in the
governing legislation.
I want to assure the House
that the Committee is well informed of this process, which is continuing along
standard parameters that apply before every publication. Once the process has
been completed, we will continue to keep all relevant parties and the House
informed.
Mr Grieve then explained the truth. “The
Intelligence and Security Committee operates on a completely non-partisan basis
to try to put information into the public domain in the national interest. This
report was completed in March of this year after many months of work. There
then began a process of correction and redaction needed to get it published,
and that process, which involved the agencies and the Cabinet Office, was
completed by early October, when the agencies and the national security
secretariat indicated that they were happy that the published form would not
damage any operational capabilities of the agencies. That is why, on 17
October, the report was sent to the Prime Minister for final confirmation.
It is a long-standing
agreement that the Prime Minister will endeavour to respond within 10 days. The
Minister has indicated that there have been instances where further delay has
crept in, but my secretariat tells me that it is unprecedented that we should
have had no response at all explaining why any further delay is required in
this case. The report has to be laid before Parliament when it is sitting. If
it is not laid before Parliament ceases to sit this evening, it will not be
capable of being laid until the Committee is reformed. In 2017, that took
nearly six months.
I ask the Minister, how is it
that the Prime Minister has claimed, through the No. 10 spokesman, that there
must be further delays for consultation about national security, when the
agencies themselves indicated publicly this morning, in response to
journalistic inquiries, that publication will not prejudice the discharge of
their functions? So, for what purpose is the Prime Minister still
considering it? It certainly cannot be the risk to national security, as the
agencies themselves have said that there is none. (my highlighting)
Will the Minister confirm that
the Prime Minister does not have carte blanche to alter our reports or remove
material from them, and that, if he wishes to exercise a veto over publication,
he must give the Committee a credible explanation as to why he is doing so?
Will he also explain why No. 10 spokesmen insisted that no publication should
take place because weeks of further interdepartmental consultations were
needed, when, I have to say to the Minister, this explanation was plainly
bogus? Finally, will he explain why No. 10 spokesmen suggested that parts of
the report had been leaked by the Committee, when it is plainly obvious to
anybody who looks at the journalistic speculations that they have not? Would he
now like to take the opportunity of withdrawing that particular slur, which
came from No. 10? (my highlighting)
Christopher Pincher . I am grateful to my right
hon. and learned Friend for his questions and for his tone. I simply reiterate
the points I made in my statement. It is not unusual for the review of ISC
reports to take some time. The average turnaround time is six weeks. The
average response to the Committee is anywhere between three and four weeks. It
is not as if the Prime Minister has not had one or two other things to do over
the past several weeks, notably obtaining a good deal for Britain on
withdrawing from the European Union. It is not unusual that the turnaround time
is what it is.
The Prime Minister has very
specific and particular responsibilities, under the Justice and Security Act
2013, to be sure that any information that ISC reports may contain is properly
checked and, if appropriate, redacted. The Prime Minister takes that
responsibility very seriously indeed, because the reports that issue from the
ISC are important. They carry weight and therefore they must be properly looked
at. That is what No. 10 is doing. That is what the Prime Minister is doing by
referring to his officials for advice, which is his right and responsibility.
As to leaks, we see quite a
few of those and we deplore them all. I certainly would not want anybody to
believe that what is in a leak, particularly if it appears on the front pages
of certain newspapers, is believable.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab). Thank
you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I thank the
right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for securing it and
for all his efforts?
I can only echo the words of
the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the utterly unjustifiable,
unprecedented and clearly politically motivated reasons for delaying the
publication of the report until after the election. This is not at the request
of the intelligence agencies. There are no foreign powers we have to consult, which
was the reason for the delay of the rendition report. This is nothing less than
an attempt to suppress the truth from the public and from Parliament, and it is
an affront to our democracy.
We are bound to ask: what is
Downing Street so worried about? Why would it not welcome an official report
into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 referendum, whether that was
successful or otherwise? I fear it is because it realises that the report
will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit, and
with the current leadership of the Tory party, that risk derailing its election
campaign. There are questions about the relationship between the FSB-linked
Sergey Nalobin and his “good friend”, the current Prime Minister. There are
questions about the Prime Minister’s chief aide, Dominic Cummings, his
relationship with Oxford academic Norman Stone, the mysterious three years that
he spent in post-communist Russia aged just 23, and the relationships that he
allegedly forged with individuals such as Vladislav Surkov, the key figure
behind Vladimir Putin’s throne. And there are questions about the amount of
money flowing into Conservative coffers from Russian émigrés, about the sources
of money that paid for the Brexit campaign, and about the dubious activities of
Conservative Friends of Russia.
If the Minister is going to
dismiss all that as conspiracy theories or smears and say that it has nothing
to do with the delay of the report, I say back to him: prove it. Publish this
report and let us see for ourselves. Otherwise, there is only question: what
have you got to hide? (my highlighting)
Christopher Pincher . I am obliged to the right
hon. Lady for giving us a run-down of her interest in smears and conspiracy theories.
She wonders where Professor Stone was in the 1980s—I rather wonder where the
Leader of the Opposition was in the 1980s and, for that matter, in the 1990s,
the 2000s and quite recently. It is rather rich for her to suggest that somehow
the Conservative party and this Government are linked to Russian
disinformation, given the way that her party leadership has acted and the
responsibility that her party leadership has had down the years for being hand
in hand with its Russian friends.
In respect of the right hon.
Lady’s question about publication, the Government and the Prime Minister have a
responsibility under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to look properly at the
report, and that is what he is doing. The turnaround time for this report is
not unusual. The response time to the Committee is not unusual. The CT attacks
report and the detainee report took some time to turn around. I understand why
the right hon. Lady may wish—for party political purposes in this febrile time,
as the House of Commons is about to dissolve—to make the points that she has,
but they are entirely refutable. I believe, personally, that they are
reprehensible, and I wish that she would withdraw the imputation about the good
name of the Conservative party and this Government.
The Labour centrist, Stella
Creasy, Waltham Forest raised similar issues. “We all in the House will know
from our email inboxes that one of the challenges facing our current politics
is that people watch too much Netflix and so are convinced that there are many
conspiracies. That said, given that, as ISC members have said, many foxes have
been set lose—reports about Sergey Nalobin, about Dominic Cumming’s security
clearance, about Alexander Temerko’s friendship with the Prime Minister, about
the use of the Lycamobile offices; given that the security agencies say they
are happy to see the report, which the Government have had since March,
published; given the cross-party support for it to be published; and given that
Earl Howe in the House of Lords yesterday said it is the Prime Minister and the
Prime Minister alone who needs to publish it, does the Minister recognise that
the best way to kill the conspiracy theories is to put it out in the open?
Former Prime Ministers have told us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why
has this Prime Minister closed the blinds? “
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) “Given
the gaps and inaccuracies in his account of the three years that he spent in
Russia, why was Dominic Cummings inexplicably granted the highest developed
vetting status, yet is routinely denied access to secret intelligence? What
damage is this unprecedented arrangement doing to our vital security
arrangements with our Five Eyes partners?” (My highlighting).
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con). I
declare an interest as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and
I absolutely support what our Chairman said. This is a question of principle
as much as anything else. I will not go into the details of what the report
is about—there have been a lot of foxes let loose by the media—but I have this
question to put to the Minister, and I feel sorry for him that he has been
landed with having to answer this, rather than perhaps someone from the Cabinet
Office. As far as the Committee is concerned, this report has been cleared
by the intelligence and security agencies. It has been cleared by the Cabinet
Office, and the civil servants and officials saw no reason whatsoever why it
should not have been published. Will the Minister therefore tell the House—I do
not want to hear all that repetition again—why the Prime Minister is not going
to allow this report to be released and published in this Parliament? (my highlighting)
Christopher Pincher. Before I answer his
question, I would like to say farewell to my right hon. Friend, who has been a
steadfast Member of this House and a doughty champion of defence and security
issues, both here and on the ISC. He asks a straightforward question. I will
give him the straightforward answer. The Prime Minister has a responsibility
under the 2013 Act to properly and carefully adjudicate upon the report before
him, and that is what he is doing, but it takes some time.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab) Thank
you, Mr Speaker—and congratulations. As a Labour member of the ISC, I support
the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Chair of
the Committee, and share his concerns. The security services have cleared our
report, the Cabinet Office has cleared our report, and we have made
recommendations to the Prime Minister. Since receiving the report, has the
Prime Minister read it, and has he submitted any redactions? I do not need to
know what they are, but has he read it, and has he submitted redactions? If
not, why does he not publish today?
Christopher Pincher. A report such as
this—a sensitive report that is 50 pages long—requires careful consideration.
As I said, it was submitted on 17 October and is being reviewed by all the
relevant senior officials within government and at No. 10. The Committee will
be informed of that process, and when the Prime Minister has concluded that the
report is publishable, he will publish it.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP) first
paid tribute to Mr Grieve and commented that “The Russian Government’s greatest
victims are their own people, with human rights abuses, and human rights and
democracy activists, opposition groups and minorities targeted. I spent several
years working in the former Soviet Union, and we in the Foreign Affairs Committee
have visited as well, and I pay tribute to the bravery of those who campaign
for fairness, the rule of law and democracy in that country. Surely the
greatest riposte we can make, and the greatest support we can give those
campaigners, is to show that democracy, openness and transparency in the UK are
something to look up to. I fear that in this case they are not.
I hope the Minister is
embarrassed by what he has just heard from the members of the ISC. Their
questions were damning, and I am not surprised he did not answer them. Given
the threat Russia poses to elections, and given that his Government have wanted
an election for months, why is this not a priority? Brexit has taught us
that this Government like to hide unhelpful reports—lots of them—so prove me
wrong and publish the report. (my highlighting)
Mr David Davis a government supporter (Haltemprice and
Howden) (Con). “That is what is missing here. By not
releasing the report, all the Minister does is create a vacuum for the paranoid
fantasies we have heard from the Opposition to fill.”
The leading member of European
Reacher Group of hard Brexiteers, Stephen Baker, tried to help the government
Minister saying “the Government is not entitled to be bullied into accelerating
the release of important national security reports? Would it not be a dangerous
precedent to establish that the Committee can come to the House and bully the
Government into releasing such an important and sensitive report?
He was put down by the
Minister. “ I do not think the Government are being bullied. Certainly, we are
not prepared to be bullied. We want to make sure the report is given proper and
careful consideration and that any further changes to or questions of it can be
addressed. Then a properly balanced report can be published
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) raised
the question of a” debate on covert and
malign foreign interference —not only any attempts on our side but why Seumas
Milne always seems to peddle the Kremlin’s line and the links between senior
people around the leader of the Labour party and pro-Russian groups in Ukraine
and elsewhere. There would be a lot of interesting debate there.” He was evidently not referring to President
Trump and the CIA!
He went on, “My question to the Minister is a broader
one. Does he agree that the best way to minimise the chances of malign and
covert interference in our electoral system is through the introduction of a
foreign agent’s registration Act? The US introduced one against covert Nazi
influence in 1938 and the Australians produced a foreign influence
transparency scheme just last year. I will be working with the Henry Jackson
Society to produce a potential template Bill. Would the Minister be interested
in discussing it with me should we both be re-elected in December?
Christopher Pincher. I am always interested to
hear the ideas and read the reports of my hon. Friend. I would certainly be
interested to see the work that parliamentary draftsmen may have to undertake
in defining a foreign agent. Foreign agents tend to keep themselves rather
quiet, it seems to me, so identifying them may be a challenge; but I am always
interested to see what my hon. Friend has to offer. If we are both
re-elected—and I wish him well in that enterprise—then of course, on the other
side, we will talk” He should have added be careful what you wish for as
this is something I am sure Labour will also investigate after December 12th
in terms of the USA, Israel and South
Arabia.
Christopher Pincher. I am not going to comment on
individual public servants. All I would say is that in asking the question that
he asks, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be less a Member of Parliament
than a walk-on member of a show like “24”.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con). In
my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have built up a healthy
respect for the way in which we conduct parliamentary scrutiny of our secret
intelligence agencies. Indeed, other Parliaments from around the world come to
see how we do it. There is much in the report that I would love to be able to
talk about here, and I would love to address some of the more eccentric
conspiracy theories that we have heard peddled here, but it comes down to this.
We have a highly respected system of parliamentary oversight which is trusted
across the House. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that in the absence of
this report’s publication, we have created a climate which has allowed some
quite bizarre conspiracy theories to be peddled, and that it would be much
better to publish what has been written in the way in which the Committee
produced it?
Christopher Pincher Let me also bid farewell to my right hon.
Friend, who has been a fine Member of Parliament for Newbury over the last 18
years. We will miss him: we will miss his intelligence, his care and his
consideration. He wonders whether, by acting in a different way, we would
reduce the propensity towards conspiracy theories. I suspect that the answer is
no. I think that those conspiracy theories would find their way into the light
in any event, thanks to some Opposition Members.
All I can do is to repeat what
I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). This
report requires careful consideration. It requires the Prime Minister to do his
duty by the Justice and Security Act, and that is what he will do.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD), There
are serious questions to be answered. I say to Members on that side of the
House that it is perfectly legitimate for Members on this side of the House to
ask the questions that we are asking. Our job is to scrutinise what the
Government are doing. Clearly there are serious questions to be answered in relation
to the role of Mr Dominic Cummings, one of the most senior officials in
Government. Perhaps the answers will allay our concerns, but we deserve to hear
those answers. I have to say that the Minister’s response today has been utterly
shameful. Let me ask him this. Is he denying that, if the shoe was on the other
foot and he was at the Opposition Dispatch Box, he would be asking for the
report to be published, as we are?
Christopher Pincher. The job of Members of
Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and reports and not to fantasise about
them, which is what I think all too many Opposition Members are doing. The
Government have a duty to scrutinise properly the report that was presented to
them by the ISC on 17 October. The Prime Minister has a duty to ask searching
questions about the report, and to satisfy himself that nothing in it breaches
our security privileges and the national security of the country. When that job
is done, and not before, the report will be published.
Mark Pritchard is known for
being on the right of the Conservative, having controversial and outspoken
views and for a public argument with former speaker John Bercow. Less known is that
he was brought up in residential and foster care. He said. “Is it not the reason
that there is no emergency and no cover, and that this is just a manifestation of
a considered bureaucratic process? May I draw the Minister’s attention to some
comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr
Grieve) has made over the past 24 hours? As a matter of courtesy, I informed
his office that I would be making these comments. To the media, he said, “I can
think of no good reason why the ISC report is not being published.” While my
right hon. and learned Friend is indeed very learned, the fact that he does not
know of a reason does not necessarily mean that there is not a reason. I wonder
whether the Minister can confirm that.
Christopher Pincher “My right hon. and learned Friend the Member
for Beaconsfield has every right to ask questions and make comments in the
media. That is his duty as a Member of Parliament, and his right as the
Chairman of the ISC. However, it is the duty of the Prime Minister, with his
officials, to consider the report properly. That is what he is doing, and until
that job is done properly the report should not be published—and the turnaround
for publication is not unusual.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) The
Minister says that the process that he is going through at the moment is not
unusual, and the secretariat of the ISC says that it is unprecedented. Both
cannot be right. Will the Minister take account of the fact that the
secretariat, the Cabinet Office, the whole civil service and the security
agencies have all said that no problem of national security is involved? Surely
he must conclude that if this is not a matter of national security, the reason
why the report is not being published is political. Will he take my advice and
publish, or be damned?
Christopher Pincher. The timelines for the
submission of the report, relative to the timelines of submissions of previous
reports, speak for themselves. The CT attacks report took about six weeks to
turn around, with four weeks between its submission and a response from the
Government, and the detainees report took about three weeks from the point of
submission to the point of response. Such timelines are not unusual, and,
although I am sure that they were made in absolute good faith, I do not
recognise the comments of the ISC secretariat. The timelines speak for
themselves.
Tom Tugendhat of Tonbridge and Malling, Conservative said
that “The Minister is entirely right to say that scrutiny dispels fantasy, and
this is one of those moments when I feel that scrutiny would be entirely appropriate
to dispel that fantasy. There can be few Members like my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), or my right hon. Friend the
Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), or, indeed, many other members of the ISC,
who were all personally chosen by the Prime Minister for their judgment, their
character and their wisdom. Would it not be appropriate—at a moment when the
country is focused on the most important democratic event that we will hold
for, certainly, a number of years—for the information that is needed for us to
judge its legitimacy to be put before the House, so that people can see the
fantasy that some are claiming, and this can all go away?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) “ have a very simple question for the Minister.
There is clearly unease about the delay in the report’s publication. Will the
Minister confirm that it is not being withheld in the interests of the
Conservative party?
Christopher Pincher. No, it is not.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) “The Minister, sent by the Prime Minister so
that he can avoid scrutiny himself, says that the length of time that the
report has been with the Government is not unusual, but will he acknowledge
that the report itself is unusual because it is about interference in elections
and we are just about to embark on a general election? So, if the Government
continue to block it after the security services have cleared it, that can only
be either because they do not take the ISC Committee seriously or because they
have something to hide, and can the Minister clarify which of those two it is?
Christopher Pincher That was another of those questions: there we
go again with a little light fantasising. The Committee has produced a serious
report—
Emily Thornberry . You are taking sneering to
a whole new level.
Christopher Pincher. The right hon. Lady from a
sedentary position accuses me of sneering. I think that is pretty rich, I have
to say, but I will press on as politely as I possibly can to the hon. Member
for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her question.
It is not unusual for time to
be taken to consider serious reports. This is a serious report and it should be
considered in a timely way. In the meantime, I would say to the hon. Lady that
there is no evidence to suggest that Russia or the Kremlin has successfully
engaged in interference in our electoral processes; if she believes that there
is, please bring that information forward, but we have seen none.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) May I
be helpful to the Minister? I listened to your speech yesterday, Mr Speaker,
and you will note that this urgent question goes to the heart of our
proceedings: this is an all-party report, the Government are not publishing it,
they should publish it, and there is all-party support for it to be published.
Only a few minutes ago we had the Foreign Secretary here, and he could have
stayed to make a statement. This is a very important issue. I want to fight
this election on health, employment, jobs and all those other important things.
If we do not stop this issue now, it will run and run, almost like a Watergate
thing, throughout the campaign, so please publish the report now and let’s get
on with the general election on the real issues.
Christopher Pincher. The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right: let’s fight the election on the real issues—on migration
issues, on health, on education, on our stance on Brexit. Let’s get out there
and do it, and let’s stop stirring the pot on this non-issue.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) Does the Minister accept and understand that
the report has been cleared, and failure to publish today will mean, as a
number of Members across the House have said, that almost every day for the
next five weeks this will permeate the campaign? That can and should be avoided
by publication today.
Christopher Pincher. I suspect that the campaign,
like most campaigns, will focus on domestic issues. I am sure the hon.
Gentleman will be fighting very hard in his constituency on matters that
concern his constituents, and I suspect this will be one of them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab) I have noted that two or three times the
Minister has said that there has been no successful penetration into the
British electoral system. Does that imply that there has been unsuccessful penetration
into the electoral system, and is that one of the reasons why the report has
not been published?
Christopher Pincher . The hon. Gentleman I think
might have now spoken for the last time in this Chamber and we wish him well in
whatever he does next. Maybe, like Tony Benn, he will retire from the House of
Commons and go into real politics; we shall see. He asked whether there are
examples of unsuccessful interference in British politics, and the way that the
Kremlin has behaved is clear; we have seen examples overseas of attempts at
electoral interference, and of attempts at fake news and disinformation, most
recently in Georgia. What I would say is that we have robust systems in place
in this country to defend ourselves against such attacks, and that is why I say
that such attacks have not been successful.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab) We
know that there was overseas interference in the US presidential election and
the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its disinformation report
last year called for an independent inquiry based on evidence that we produced
to the Government. That request to the Government was rejected, and is not the
problem that this decision to withhold this report is part of a course of
conduct by this Government to refuse to look at whether there has been the
level of interference that many in the country believe?
Christopher Pincher The hon. Gentleman also may
be leaving the Commons very soon, and I wish him well in his future path. He
asked a reasonable question because disinformation tactics continue to evolve
and therefore we must always be on our guard. The “Online Harms” White Paper
that the Government produced commits us to introducing a duty of care on online
companies to tackle a wide range of online harms, and they include limiting the
spread of disinformation. With respect to the election in the United States, of
course lots of comments have been made and suggestions and allegations have
been heard. I am not going to comment on the US election; all I can say is that
I think the US has as robust a system as we do.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD) Further
to the previous question, I am not in the business of peddling conspiracy
theories, but I do look at credible sources and was disturbed by the release of
the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report last month that did find
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which makes the release
of this report all the more important, all the more relevant and all the more
imperative as we embark on the democratic process of an election in our
country. Can the Minister confirm this today: has the Prime Minister read the
report?
Christopher Pincher The hon. Lady is right to
draw attention to the actions of the Kremlin in states abroad. I have said that
we have evidence from around the world of activity that is malign and
malicious. I believe that we here in the UK have a robust set of systems in
place to defend ourselves. We will look closely at the report that the right
hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and his Committee have submitted to
the Government. It is going through the No. 10 process and at the end of that
rigorous review process we will see the report.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) We
have heard from several Members of the ISC this afternoon, including three sat
behind the Minister, and all have highlighted that every security agency
required to do so has signed off this report, as has the Cabinet Office. The
unprecedented delay is due to the Prime Minister. Is that because the Prime
Minister is acting in the unprecedented fashion of subjugating national
security to personal and political interests and his loyalty to Dominic
Cummings, a man already found to be in contempt of Parliament?
The short answer is no. The
report has to go through a proper and rigorous process of scrutiny. It was submitted
to the Government on 17 October. The time being taken to scrutinise it is not
unusual; to say it is unprecedented is not accurate. Other reports—other sensitive
reports, and complicated reports—have taken between four and six weeks to turn
around; this important and sensitive report is no different.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) Mr Speaker Last, but certainly not
least, representing the safest seat in the country I call Stephen Timms. Stephen Timms Thank you, Mr Speaker, and
many congratulations to you. The Committee Chair reminds us that if the Prime
Minister is unable to respond within 10 days he is required to provide an
explanation for that failure. He has not provided an explanation, which, we
understand, is unprecedented. Why has the Prime Minister not complied with the
requirement placed upon him?
Christopher Pincher It is because there is no
requirement. The memorandum of understanding with the Committee is clear about
the rules: there is no set timeline for a response and there is no set deadline
in the governing legislation. The Prime Minister has a duty under the 2013 Act
to look carefully and considerately at such reports. That is what No. 10 is
doing, that is what the Prime Minister will do, and when that work is completed
the report will be published”.
There was immediate refence in
the mainstream media to what was said and Newsnight devoted the first part of
its programme on Friday evening, concluding that No 10 had decided to put
political expediency before responsible government, which fits in with all those who allege that Boris
will say and do what is required to get and stay in office.
A different source made this point when explaining the incoherent
attempt by the Prime Minister to justify the decision to remove the backstop by
accepting a border between northern Ireland and the three other home nations,
something with the European Community negotiators had offered Teresa May but
she had rejected because it was unacceptable to the Democratic Unionists and
would embolden the Scottish Nationalist Party to go for another Independence
referendum. I accept that Mr Johnson was not drunk but like former Speaker John
Bercow, he appears able to generate and sustain a High without the need for
some form of external stimulant.
The fact that Russia supported the Independence
referendum, supported the Leave campaign and that individual wealthy Russians have supported the Tory
Party with hundreds of thousands of
pounds may not affect the outcome of General Election.
Nor do I suspect will the
behaviour of the former Secretary of State of Wales in supporting a candidate, and
his former aide, which a judge ordered him to leave the court for sabotaging a
rape trial, will affect the outcome of what happens in Wales, despite Alan
Cairns being the first Cabinet Minister to resign during the period of a
general election.
In fact, a recent investigation
into the voting intentions in one part of Wales suggests that people are more
upset by the comment made on a London radio station by Jacob Rees Mogg
criticising the intelligence of victims
for not disobeying the instructions of officialdom not to leave their
accommodation and the building. In a subsequent
end of Parliament Debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, one conservative
complained that there were fewer Members who had been to Eton in the present Parliament
than when he entered. The numbers from memory were 46 and 70. The kind of
family and education experienced by Rees Mogg is designed for him to believe he
has the ability to rule than be ruled, and
I suspect that the majority of those resident in Grenfell Tower were
brought up to respect and accept the authority of government and its representatives.
No one should be taken in by
the cultured well mannered outward appearance of Rees Mogg as it covers as
ruthless and determined a character as Boris Johnson. Rees Mogg does not appear
to care if he is liked by the general
voters and appears to enjoy courting attention such as lounging contemptuously on
the benchers of the House of Commons or taking his son to Parliament on a day
when trouble was to be expected on the streets. It is said that Boris needs to
be liked and consequently says whatever he believes an audience wants to hear.
What Mr Rees Mogg said has implications beyond the residents
of Grenfell tower and their relatives. I am sure he did not appreciate that what
he said can be interpreted as also
saying that ordinary persons of Jewish faith and origin in Nazi Germany, or the
other Nazi occupied countries, were
wrong to accept the instructions by
those in authority, to board the trains which led to the extermination camps.
A better example where those
ordering did not display guns or were part of an established authoritarian
regime, occurred at Hillsborough. Is Mr Rees Mogg saying the Liverpool football
supporters should have ignored the commands
of the police on their instructions where and when to enter the stadium? Mr
Rees Mogg should have resigned. His apology is not good enough.
In the United States and in
Britain there is evidence we have state
leaders prepared to misuse power in their own and political party interests, with
deliberate calculation saying anything whether it is true, misleading or false, to retain power.
In contrast the Labour Party
is led by someone with proven political integrity over decades and with a record
of being open, honest and right.
On one hand, a Party seeking
authoritarian control over Parliament and the people and on the other a Party
seeking to widen democratic participation and take decisions in the interests
of the majority, including on the issue of Brexit, giving everyone the choice between
the least damaging from of Leave or Remain.
It is common sense shared with
the majority of the electorate .
