Government Says It's Not "Appropriate" For Committee To Scrutinise Security Adviser
2 min read
The government has backed national security adviser Jonathan Powell in his refusal to appear before the parliamentary committee responsible for directly scrutinising his role.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS), which analyses government’s decisions over national security, has invited Powell – appointed the UK’s national security adviser in November 2024 – on three separate occasions to give evidence but had no response. Every previous holder of the post has given evidence to the committee.
Matt Western, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, wrote to Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February to complain.
In response to his letter, minister for intergovernmental relations and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden argued that “longstanding practice” means special advisers do not give evidence to select committees and this is done instead by ministers or officials. “Therefore, this request has not been judged appropriate in this circumstance,” he wrote.
McFadden added that he has directed the deputy national security advisers to attend in Powell’s place, with the Cabinet Secretary also attending where appropriate, which he hoped constituted “an acceptable arrangement”. He wrote that Powell is “keen to meet” Western privately.
Western has hit back, saying the government’s position on Powell’s attendance “appears to depart from convention”. He told McFadden that the JCNSS “does not agree” with the government and pointed to its Osmotherly Rules, which state that when a select committee wishes to take evidence from an official, “including special advisers”, the presumption is for ministers to agree.
The JCNSS chair also criticised the government for refusing to continue sharing agendas for National Security Council meetings. Such agendas have been shared with committees by governments since 2013.
Western commented: “Last week the Prime Minister told the public that their defence and security was the number-one priority of this government. But if committees like ours cannot hear from the national security adviser, and the government is no longer willing to share the National Security Council agendas, how can we assess whether he is making the right progress?
The Labour MP added: “Given the public’s heightened concerns over our own security, this sets a worrying precedent for avoiding public scrutiny on a crucial area. I encourage the government to rethink its position, and I remind it that I will raise this issue by alternative means if necessary.”
PoliticsHome Newsletters
PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe
