National Security The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat) Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here for both my first and
second outings at the Dispatch Box. I am extremely grateful that Mr
Speaker granted the statement and that it follows the urgent
question. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who took over the chairmanship
of the Foreign Affairs Committee from me, not only for the urgent
question but...Request free trial
National
Security
The Minister for Security ()
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here for both my first
and second outings at the Dispatch Box. I am extremely grateful
that Mr Speaker granted the statement and that it follows the
urgent question. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the
Member for Rutland and Melton (), who took over the
chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee from me, not only
for the urgent question but for her work over many years in
standing up for our freedoms.
I would like to make a statement on national security and
safeguarding our democracy. In this new era of global
competition, we face constant and concerted efforts to undermine
our country and our institutions. A range of actors, including
foreign states, are trying to weaken us, to challenge us and to
exploit us. We are not alone. It is the burden of liberty shared
by democracies around the world. The evidence of that is clear
and, sadly, indisputable. Dictatorships are trying to write new
rules for a new world. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine is a
terrible example of the growing threat from hostile states to our
security. Russia is attacking not just a free people but a free
world.
Our integrated review, published last year, makes clear the
threat that we are facing. This is not a simple clash of armour
but a clash of ideas. Across our society, we are seeing the
challenge grow and evolve to pose a strategic threat to the
security and prosperity of our nation for many years to come. A
generation ago, we had the answer: our technology and our wallets
were greater than theirs. Today, technological integration has
deepened connections and opened doors into areas of our lives
that we once thought closed. Now, as our markets integrate, we
need to think about the future of our industry and innovation.
Our economic security guarantees our economic sovereignty just as
our democratic security guarantees our freedom.
The advanced technologies that our rivals have spent time and
money developing have levelled the field and made us more
vulnerable. Britain has been on the frontline of the defence of
liberty for generations. Our agencies and businesses have faced
the reality of this danger for decades. Our Parliament and our
politics are now no different. Whether as Ministers or shadow
Ministers, on Committee or when leading a campaign, this is about
every party and every Member of the House. We have all heard of
the attempts of unfriendly states to influence our politics in
recent years and of the actions that the security officers of the
House have had to take to defend us. They are not working alone.
I want to put on record my admiration and gratitude to those who
work hard to keep us safe in the House and around the country,
because while others are on the frontline of our nation, those of
us privileged to be elected—at every level and in every
community—are on the frontline of our democracy.
I am here to make it clear that the Government are, and always
will be, here to protect our freedoms, and none is more precious
than the freedom of our nation to determine its own future. That
is, after all, what democracy is about. It is the debate in towns
and villages—in person and online—of free people in a free
country searching for answers to the problems that we all face.
As all of us know, it does not always go our way, but it is the
freedom to choose that we all defend. We are taking action to
address these threats.
Just as our counter-terrorism legislation in the early 2000s
updated the necessary legal powers that our police and security
services needed to tackle the growing threat of terrorism, we are
enhancing our ability to defend against hostile states and those
acting on their behalf. The National Security Bill, which is
currently before the House, will give us the powers we need today
for the threats that we face now. It will be the most significant
piece of legislation to tackle the incursion of state-based
threats to our nation in a century. Those actors threaten not
just life but our way of life. We have to work even harder to
protect and uphold our freedom and the institutions that defend
it. From establishing our Defending Democracy programme in 2019
to the continuous work by the National Cyber Security Centre, we
have sought to address that, but we must do more. That is why I
can announce to the House that the Prime Minister has asked me to
lead a taskforce to drive forward work to defend the democratic
integrity of our country. The taskforce will work with
Parliament, Departments, the security and intelligence agencies,
the devolved Administrations and the private sector. It will work
to better protect the freedoms and institutions we hold
dear—institutions such as this very House.
The taskforce will look at the full range of threats facing our
democratic institutions, including the physical threat to Members
of this Parliament and those elected to serve across the country,
so tragically brought home by the murder of our dear friends
last year and in 2016, and the support on offer through Operation
Bridger and by the police. The work of this Taskforce will report
into the National Security Council and more details will be set
out in the update of the integrated review.
This is not just a taskforce for this Government. It will be
cross-departmental and inter-agency, and I will be inviting
cross-party co-operation, because, as I have said, this is not
just about Ministers in office, civil servants or advisers across
Whitehall. This work is for all of us in this House and those who
have asked us to represent their interests. The Government have
robust systems in place to protect against cyber threats. We are
vigilant in ensuring that these are up to date and meet the
challenges of the modern world. The National Cyber Security
Centre, Government and parliamentary security offer all Members
specific advice on protecting personal data and managing online
profiles, as well as best practice guidance. I am grateful to Mr
Speaker for agreeing to write to all parliamentarians on that
important issue.
Finally, it is important to end by underlining that tackling
these threats means providing the protection that defends our
democratic institutions and the liberties that we cherish so
dearly, because the point of security is not to lock us down but
to liberate. My job as Security Minister of this great United
Kingdom is to give us all the security to live our lives freely,
and to debate and choose our future, guarded by the laws and
freedoms of our nation. That is my guiding principle. I commend
this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Home Secretary, .
2.12pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister for Security. I know
this is an issue that he personally takes very seriously. It is
the first job of every Government to defend our national security
from hostile states who wish to do our country harm and who
strain every sinew to do so with the most sophisticated
technology and resources, and from malign actors and extremists,
both here and abroad, who want to do us harm and undermine both
our democracy and everything we stand for. We pay tribute to the
remarkable work of our intelligence and security services who
work so hard to keep us safe.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement. We will support the
taskforce and its work to defend democracy against a wide range
of threats. I welcome the work on physical threats. We remember
with great sadness our lost friends and . Can the Minister clarify that
the taskforce will work on how to protect all our democratic
institutions against foreign interference? Will it look at
cyber-security and, in particular, the way the Government have
been operating? While I welcome the seriousness of the statement
and the seriousness with which the Minister has delivered it, he
will know that it is a far cry from the way successive Cabinet
Ministers have responded, and from the lack of seriousness and
the carelessness and complacency that we have seen on some of
these cyber-security issues.
Conservative Ministers were all warned in guidance after the 2019
election:
“You should not use your personal devices, email and
communications applications for Government business at any
classification”.
Yet many of them at the highest level ignored it. If we take the
last Prime Minister but one, who left office just a few months
ago, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip () took a trip without
officials at the height of the Skripal crisis to a villa in Italy
described by locals as the “Russian mountain” where he met ex-KGB
agent Alexander Lebedev. He did not declare it to Foreign Office
officials on his return and says he does not remember what was
discussed. He had a guest with him, but he travelled home alone
and has never said who the guest was. He reportedly took his
phone with the same number that he still did not change even when
he became Prime Minister and sent private messages on it. If this
is a new era of defending democracy and security, can the
Minister tell us whether the former Prime Minister took his
personal phone with him on his Italy party weekend? Who was his
guest and what action is now being taken to prevent that kind of
thing ever happening again?
Can the Minister tell us, too, whether that Prime Minister’s
successor, the next Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, the
right hon. Member for South West Norfolk () used her private phone for
Government business, including contacting other international
leaders? If she did, what is being done to prevent that ever
happening again?
There are now questions about the current Prime Minister: he
reappointed to the Cabinet as the Minister without Portfolio the
right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir ), who was sacked after a
leak investigation over Huawei; and he reappointed the Home
Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (), just six days after she
was sacked over a security lapse and who yesterday admitted she
had used her personal email not just once but six times in the
space of 43 days, all apparently because she could not make her
Government IT work properly or did not have it with her. That is
not adequate. And we still do not have any answer to the serious
allegations about potential leaks when the Home Secretary was
Attorney General, which include a briefing to The Daily Telegraph
in January about an injunction that the Attorney General was
seeking against the BBC in a security service case, which was
then used in court to argue against the injunction. Again, if
this is a new era, can the Security Minister give us a categoric
response as to whether the Home Secretary when she was Attorney
General—or her adviser—was involved in that leak?
The Minister will know, too, that there have been briefings and
stories around with national security implications. Does he agree
how incredibly unhelpful it is to our security services to have
national security issues briefed in a way that appears to be
about putting party interest before the national interest, and
that it does not serve democracy if all these issues are not
taken seriously by the person most in charge of defending our
national security—the Prime Minister, followed by the Home
Secretary he appoints?
Yes, we will support the Minister’s taskforce, but he will need
to show us that there is some kind of grip at the heart of this
Government on attitudes towards security. When we have one Prime
Minister who puts security at risk to go to Italy for a party,
another who allegedly used a personal phone for contacting
Government Ministers, and a third who is defending his
predecessors and reappointing as Home Secretary someone described
on the Government’s own Back Benches as “leaky”, that undermines
our national security. Our national security is too important for
this kind of chaos, so what will the Minister do to ensure that
the Government get a grip?
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for her very kind comments on
joining the taskforce and assisting with it, because this is
clearly not just a matter for the Government. As she correctly
set forward, all of us in this House have responsibilities and
the potential to be influenced in different ways. That is why so
much of the legislation going through, on which the hon. Member
for Halifax () is being incredibly
co-operative, such as the foreign influence registration scheme
legislation, will help us to address many of those challenges.
The right hon. Lady will also be aware that the National Security
Bill, of which the Opposition have been so supportive in so many
areas, will be important in enabling us to challenge some of
these different issues.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact
that we all have such responsibility. Sadly, this is not just a
UK matter. Sadly, it is not even a single Government or a single
party matter. The reality is that we have seen the intrusion or
attempted intrusion into different aspects of all our
communications at different points over many, many years. This
issue has grown in importance.
I am not going to comment on individual cases, because as the
right hon. Lady rightly said, that would be absolutely unhelpful.
It would be completely wrong of me to use, for any private party
advantage, comments on anything that the agencies have told me in
private. She herself has been extremely gracious in accepting
briefings on Privy Council terms, and she has, completely
correctly, guarded the privacy of them. I know that she has
responded to those in exactly the appropriate way, so I place on
record my enormous thanks to her for her extreme co-operation in
what is fundamentally a matter of national security.
I will bring forward further proposals on the taskforce and would
welcome the right hon. Lady’s thoughts, because there is an awful
lot that we must do together. Sadly, the next few years are
likely to be more challenging than the last. The indications are
not great, as she knows. We need to work together. This is not
about one party or one Government; it is about defending the
British people’s right to choose their future democratically and
freely, without the influence of foreign states.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee,
.
(New Forest East) (Con)
May I start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to
the House for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the
remainder of the statement, as I would normally wish to do?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his new
responsibilities. I remind him that, in 2013, extensive new
legislation gave considerably greater powers to the intelligence
and security agencies. In return for that, an understanding was
reached—and there was a memorandum of understanding—between the
Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee that
we would have oversight of the various agencies that had improved
and increased powers; and that, as the situation changes, we
would continue to have oversight of new organisations of the sort
that he is announcing today. Will he confirm that the elements of
the taskforce’s activities that involve, for scrutiny, access to
classified information will fall under the purview of the
Intelligence and Security Committee; and that he will break the
bad practice that was brought in by the last but one Prime
Minister of farming such matters out to ordinary parliamentary
Select Committees, which, with the best will in the world, cannot
conduct the scrutiny properly because they lack the secure
facilities and suitably cleared staff?
I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who
knows well the importance that I place on Committees. I merely
challenge him on one small aspect: there is no such thing as an
ordinary Committee in this House. All of them are select and are
selected by the House for the purposes that they have been asked
to investigate. I make absolutely clear my commitment to work
with his Committee and the Committees of others, as relevant, to
ensure that the necessary democratic oversight of Government is
complete.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the SNP spokesman, .
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Like him and the shadow
Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract
and Castleford (), I pay tribute to all those
working so hard to protect us.
We all wish the Minister well in his work to strengthen national
security and we will work constructively with him to that end. In
principle, a taskforce is welcome; the devil will be in the
detail and the proof in the pudding. For example, will he tell us
more about the timescale and how its membership will be
appointed, and will he say more about the participation of
devolved Governments in it?
Although we acknowledge that the Minister takes national security
incredibly seriously, he will appreciate that lots of questions
are still outstanding about his colleagues. As we heard, the
former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary had her phone hacked,
apparently revealing highly sensitive discussions and
information. Her predecessor had his phone number freely
available online for 15 years, and had a meeting with a former
KGB agent without officials. A Home Secretary has resigned in
recent days over her use of personal phones and emails for
official business, only to be reappointed within days. Recent
High Court papers suggested that “government by WhatsApp” was the
norm. A taskforce is all well and good, but those questions must
be answered.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot say much at the Dispatch
Box about the hacking of the former Prime Minister’s phone, but
can he reassure us that steps are being taken to ensure that
nothing similar happens again? Does he agree that there should be
some form of inquiry into that incident and will he commit to
full co-operation with that? Will he say whether government by
WhatsApp is still considered appropriate? Will he confirm the
status of the documents that the Home Secretary sent to her
private email?
Finally, what steps is the Minister taking to reassure our
international partners? We know that they take a dim view of the
security mess at the heart of the Government. Frankly, how can we
expect them to share anything with us when too many of his
colleagues appear to be playing fast and loose with what they are
told?
I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his
co-operative tone in regard to how we will work together on this
issue. I will set out details and be in touch with the devolved
Governments and Administrations to make sure that their views are
fully taken into account and that the important different needs
of different devolved areas are respected and play fully into the
taskforce.
It is essential that we recognise that, sadly, this is not simply
a matter for the United Kingdom. The reality is that the points
that the hon. Gentleman made also apply to friends and partners
around the world. We have seen very significant reports of
intrusion and intervention into electronic communications in
other countries. Sadly, that includes France, where President
Macron set out his issues with Russian hostile activity at the
time of the general election only a few years ago; and there are
other such reports in other jurisdictions.
We are working together with friends and partners on this issue,
because the reality is that the defence of democracy does not
stop at the United Kingdom coast but continues in depth when we
work with partners and allies. We will only be safe when we
support others to guarantee their freedoms so that ours are even
more secure.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
First and foremost, there is no question that in the Government
and even in Parliament we have become incredibly sloppy about any
idea of security. The carrying of telephones—just switched
off—into meetings is a security risk, because they can be
switched back on and used as microphones. We know that. I have
seen Government Ministers carrying telephones into meetings in
their back pocket. That should be stopped. All those phones
should be taken off them. We can do many things, and GCHQ is very
clear about the penetration of our enemies into our space.
My main point is that in all of this—the Minister is reviewing
the integrated review—why in heaven’s name was China not seen as
a threat when we did the original review? This is about
everything it does, such as the trashing of Hong Kong, the
Uyghurs, taking over the South China seas and the attacks on
people like me and others, including the Minister, as
sanctionees. Will he make sure, first of all, that we lift China
back into that bracket as a threat, treat them as a threat and do
not excuse it? For those of us who are sanctioned, it would be
marvellous if the Foreign Office or even Parliament were capable
of giving us any advice about what happens to our families when
they have to travel. I find it remarkable that when we ask them
that question, we have no idea of what limitations that poses on
us, even today.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely
right to cite the fact that China has become a long-term
strategic threat. I am afraid that I cannot answer on why it was
not raised before; I have only just joined the Government, as he
knows.
The question of security is so important for all of us. The
National Cyber Security Centre and Parliament’s security office
have been extremely open in helping any Member, Minister, shadow
Minister, official or staffer who seeks advice on that matter. I
pay enormous tribute to the security officer for her work and the
way in which she has assisted many of us at different points to
realise the threats that are against us and how to best protect
ourselves.
Let me make this commitment absolutely clear: there is no defence
of democracy without defending every Member of the House.
Whichever party we are from and whichever cause we champion, we
are here because free people chose us to be here. It is our
responsibility to make sure that that freedom endures in the work
and in the voices that we hold.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I again welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post and the
commitment that he is showing to try to get together a
cross-party approach to his taskforce. National security is
absolutely crucial. It is the job not just of the Government, but
of each and every one of us in this House—in the Opposition and
on the Government Benches—to take that seriously. Will the
Minister bring updates on the work of the taskforce to the House
so that we can scrutinise its work? Also, what level of
information will Members be provided with given the sensitivity
of some of the subjects that he will look at?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his entirely correct assessment
that this is not just about the Government. Actually, it is not
just about this House, but about many of the businesses that
support us in various ways and many of the businesses that we are
privileged to represent in the communities that we are lucky
enough to serve. I absolutely agree that this is a matter for all
of us.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he
has approached the issue, because the reality is that I will have
to bring—in fact, will willingly bring—reports back to the House,
but some of them may be caveated. They may not include some
details that Members would quite understandably ask for, but
which may not be appropriate for wider reading, for reasons that
the hon. Gentleman understands and has already expressed. I
assure him that I will ensure that this House is able, in the
appropriate way, to scrutinise the work that I conduct on behalf
of our people and our country.
(Wokingham) (Con)
What urgent action will the Government take so that we grow more
of our own food, produce more of our own oil and gas, and refill
our depleted reservoirs? Having more domestic supply of the
basics is now fundamental to national security, given the obvious
threats from Russia and others.
I will not comment on the details of the taskforce, but I think I
can safely say that that is a little beyond even what I was
hoping for. I will not go into details, except to say that my
right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the reality is that supply
chains in our country and around the world have changed as covid
has influenced different issues, and sadly the nature of the
decoupling that some states have sought to pursue has changed the
way in which we must consider our own security.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
One area of Government policy that I suggest would benefit from
the fresh eyes of the Minister is the need for a whistleblower
defence under the National Security Bill. The Minister may be
aware that an amendment will be moved on Report; it might
facilitate the Bill’s passage if he met me and other hon. Members
behind the amendment before then.
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely clearly. He
knows that the new Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy
and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and
Malton (), is responsible for the
Bill alongside me and has his own views on the subject. No doubt
my hon. Friend will be extremely willing to meet the right hon.
Gentleman. If not, I shall.
(Chelmsford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; he is a great
champion of freedom and his taskforce is an excellent idea. To
protect our democracy, it is vital that we protect those who work
in our democratic institutions, especially all Members of this
House, from misinformation, cyber-attacks and online attacks. It
is also vital that we continue to work with other countries,
because it is only by working together that we can champion
democracy and let democracy prevail. Does my right hon. Friend
agree?
I pay enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend, whose work in the
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was incredibly
important in championing democracy and freedom around the world.
Indeed, some of her work that was not always celebrated was in
championing journalism. One thing we should recognise fully is
that democracy does not work without a free press: I know that I
am going to regret these words, but what they write and how they
write it are as much a part of our democratic institutions as the
words that we use in this Chamber. Making sure that our press is
free and without influence is as important to democracy as making
sure that we are, too.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister to his important new role. He and I
have spent many years safeguarding the security of information;
these are matters that I know he takes very seriously, and I wish
him well in the role.
Because I know the Minister takes these matters so seriously, I
want to return briefly to the shadow Home Secretary’s point about
the importance of doing the right thing and the importance of
personal conduct. In addition to the measures that the Minister
has outlined to the House today, there is an absolute requirement
for a vigilant mindset among all Members of this House, but most
critically among Ministers, who need to show leadership in the
area. Does he agree that when it comes to matters of national
security, everyone—everyone—must adhere to the protective regime
or be deprived of access and removed from their position if
necessary? Those are the rules, and everyone should follow them
at all times.
May I take a moment to pay enormous tribute to my friend? We met
in Helmand about 16 years ago, when he was commanding a unit that
I was sent to check up on. Well, he is checking up on me now—and
he is quite right to hold me to account for my words, as I was
sent to hold him to account for his actions back then. He is
absolutely right. I know that his bedtime reading is the US army
field manual: the first words are “Every day, do one thing to
improve your defensive position.”
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. It was a pleasure to
serve with him on the National Security Bill Committee. I also
welcome the taskforce that he has set out.
Last week, a number of us went with the armed forces
parliamentary scheme to Shrivenham, where we not only heard from
some of the leading experts in cyber in our armed forces, but saw
the new Defence Cyber Academy, which was announced only a few
weeks ago by the Defence Secretary. Will the Minister work with
our armed forces on cyber to protect British companies and our
institutions from Russian and Chinese cyber-attacks that put our
national security at risk?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his work on the
Bill Committee; he has been an absolute stalwart on the issue and
has been a very dear friend for a lot longer. I also pay tribute
to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its work to make
Members of this House aware of the various ways in which the
armed forces play such a vital role in our national life. My hon.
Friend’s comments on cyber awareness are absolutely correct, and
I agree with every word.
(Belfast East) (DUP)
As the Democratic Unionist party spokesman for home affairs, may
I express my personal delight at seeing the Minister in his
place? I hope that when he is constructing this welcome
taskforce, he will recognise that our recent history and our
contemporary position in Northern Ireland mean that we have a
contribution to make.
The Minister and I were elected at the same time. Since then, we
have had the strategic defence and security review, the
modernising defence programme, the national security capability
review and the integrated review, which formed part of his
statement. There are two common threads in those four exercises:
the threats get bigger, but the budget remains the same. Does he
have an assurance at this stage that if the taskforce brings
forward a new programme of work to address emerging threats, it
will have the associated budget to tackle them?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he will know,
not only is the voice of Ulster heard very clearly in the
integrated review, but it actually holds the pen. It is a
pleasure to commit to working with him and others across the
United Kingdom to make sure that voices are heard. On resources,
we are in the early stages: at the moment we are setting out how
we can work together better, but there is an awful lot still to
do.
(Runnymede and Weybridge)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and warmly welcome
him to his place.
In the same way that the UK took a leading role in international
collaboration against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is it
taking a leading role in international collaboration against
cyber-attacks by hostile actors?
My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about international
co-operation, because this is not something that we can do alone.
Our partners around the world are absolutely integral to our
defence. Through agencies such as GCHQ and wider work through the
National Cyber Security Centre, the United Kingdom has regularly
been leading different forms of engagement and different ways of
co-operation. My hon. Friend has my absolute commitment that that
will continue and grow, because the way we extend the UK’s
influence and defend ourselves is by making sure that our friends
and allies are safe, too.
(Halton) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post and welcome the taskforce.
While I have no reason to doubt his integrity or commitment to
security, I am a little disappointed that although the shadow
Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central
() both raised the issue of the Government’s integrity
with respect to security, he has not addressed it. I thought he
might have taken that opportunity, given the situation with
Ministers’ email use and the security issues surrounding it. We
know that mobile phones and other phones are being used, we have
seen the former Prime Minister going off to meet an ex-KGB agent,
and there is an issue about Russian money in the Conservative
party. I thought that the Minister would address the question of
how we can have confidence that he and the Government will put
things right to ensure that they take security within the
Government seriously.
The question that I want to ask the Minister is very simple.
Given that the focus has rightly been on Russia and China, on
what is happening in Ukraine—obviously—and on energy security,
may I suggest that it is important for us not to lose sight of
the fact that we need to keep on top of the issue of how we
combat terrorism? It seems to have been left on the back burner
recently, but we need to know and feel more comfortable about
what the Government intend to do to protect the country from
terrorism.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He is absolutely
right. There is, sadly, no let-up in the concern about terrorism,
and we know that the fact that we do not hear of incidents does
not mean they were not prevented by our fantastic agencies in
various different ways. The experience that I think must be the
most sobering I have had for a long time was walking into my
present role and hearing an update on the threats that we face
every day, and the different ways in which our fantastic agencies
and the officers who serve them have been conducting themselves
in order to protect us. They are absolutely the best of us, and
we are blessed and honoured to have them working for us and
serving our state.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s other points, he will forgive me if I
do not go into details. He knows why that is. As the shadow Home
Secretary correctly said, it would be inappropriate to discuss
operational matters for party advantage.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cyber
security, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I am sure
he is well aware of the importance of disinformation and
misinformation and the harm that it is causing to our country at
the moment, whether by undermining our democracy or by spreading
conspiracy theories. But if he is in any doubt about that, I
recommend to him the BBC series “Death by Conspiracy?”, which
shows how our constituents are being hurt, and even dying, as a
result of the sharing of disinformation by, often, foreign
actors.
With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend agree, within the
taskforce, to look at the role of legal but harmful content and
keep it under review? Will he also ensure that we look at the
Computer Misuse Act 1990 and its possible reform? Some of the
people who are working hard daily to keep us and our businesses
safe are currently under threat of legal action just through
doing their jobs.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party
parliamentary group. He is to right to highlight the threat of
disinformation and, indeed, the way in which cyber is being used
against us. I am not entirely sure whether it was flattery or
mere coincidence that as soon as I took this job, the BBC ran a
series of programmes called “The Capture” in which the Security
Minister—rather better-looking than me—had managed to annoy a
certain hostile power of which we have been speaking this
afternoon, and was subject to a number of cyber-attacks. I very
much hope it was coincidence, not prediction.
(North Durham) (Lab)
As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome
the announcement of the Minister’s taskforce. Some of the issues
he has raised were highlighted in our Russia report of 2020. I
heard his commitment to the Chair of the ISC to work with him
closely, but may I just say to him that, like the rest of us, he
is—to use a Robin Day phrase—a here today, gone tomorrow
politician? We need this taskforce’s scrutiny to be embedded in
the memorandum of understanding between the Committee and the
Government, because otherwise—this point was raised by my hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish ()—it will be impossible for
much of the taskforce’s work to be scrutinised in this place.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that institutions
and structures are what guard us against the “here today, gone
tomorrow” whims of politicians, and that setting up such
structures is the way we keep ourselves safe. Indeed, the best of
our institutions have endured for hundreds of years in order to
guarantee those freedoms. The right hon. Gentleman can be
absolutely assured that I will be looking at ways in which we can
embed such structures to ensure that we keep ourselves safe.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate the Minister and welcome him to his new role. May
I ask him to answer a serious and simple question? He has made
great play of cyber-security and the need for us to be
technologically aware of threats. If he was made aware that a
civil servant or Government employee had been sacked for sharing
Government documents in personal email accounts or devices, would
he sanction that person’s re-employment, even if they had
apologised?
One of the reasons I have always enjoyed debating with the hon.
Member is the fact that he finds new ways of asking old
questions. I was delighted to hear the question, but I am afraid
I am going to return to my old answer, which is that I will not
comment on ongoing cases.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
When it was reported in the press that the former Foreign
Secretary’s phone had been hacked, the former head of MI6 said
that Ministers needed to be properly educated about the use of
their telephones. If we are absolutely honest—and the point has
been made already today—all of us need to be properly educated
about not just the use of our phones, but the use of our emails.
Does the Minister agree that perhaps it is now time for us to
move to a more proactive approach with Members, to ensure not
only that we have the excellent advice that is available but that
people are looking to make sure that we are following that
advice? If the House authorities decide to go down that road,
will he ensure that people with all the expertise available to
him will be able to attend to give us practical advice about
everything we ought to be doing to keep our part in our democracy
safe?
The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely valid point. I can
assure him that any requests from parliamentary security and the
excellent lead that we have in the person who currently holds the
role will be looked at with extreme willingness. Any request to
defend our democracy by those of us who have been privileged to
be elected to this House, or indeed those who have been
privileged to be elected to others, will be taken extremely
seriously. The same, by the way, applies to academic freedom and
to many other institutions. They are absolutely fundamental to
the liberties of our country.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
In her resignation letter, the Home Secretary said:
“As soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on
official channels, and informed the Cabinet Secretary.”
Nothing in that statement is correct, according to the Home
Secretary’s own account when she wrote to the Chair of the Home
Affairs Committee yesterday. She waited several hours, she was
confronted rather than volunteering information, and she finally
reported her breach of security not to the Cabinet Secretary but
to her special adviser. If we are being charitable, there is a
conflict between the Home Secretary’s versions of events, and
surely that merits an independent investigation if we are to have
confidence in the person who is primarily responsible for our
national security.
The hon. Gentleman has made his points, and the Home Secretary
answered yesterday.
(Eltham) (Lab)
But the Minister is aware that there are questions about whether
the Home Secretary has full security clearance. Can he give the
House an assurance that she has that clearance and, if not, what
are the implications for national security?
All members of the King’s Privy Council have access to the
information that is necessary to conduct their tasks.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
And now, in his traditional place, .
(Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A taskforce for all the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to be excellent
news, and I welcome it.
The Northern Ireland protocol is stirring up tensions in Northern
Ireland. What steps will the Minister and the Government take to
deal with the people who chant in support of the IRA—the same
IRA, the same fifth columnists, who want to destroy our United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and who carried
out the indiscriminate murder campaign of pure evil with which
they devastated Northern Ireland during the troubles—and what
steps have been taken to ensure support for the Police Service of
Northern Ireland at all times to combat the very real threat of
terrorism from republicans or, indeed, from any mindset in
Northern Ireland?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second question today; I hope
I will be privileged to take many more. He can be assured that
all security policy will include the whole of the United Kingdom,
and that I will be absolutely committed to working with the PSNI
and numerous other police forces.
|
