David Cameron gives evidence to joint committee on the national security strategy - live updates
LivePrime
minister expected to talk about Syria, the future of the army and the
best way to plan for future security threats ranging from terrorism to
conventional war before committee of peers and MPs
The now-decommissioned British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. Photograph: Luke MacGregor/Reuters
Live
Sort by:
Latest first
Oldest first
Auto update:
On
Off
Cameron continues, asking whether confidence in intelligence
agencies has been dented. He says he doesn't know, but gets the sense
the public are less bothered by all this than "some of the media"
(that'll be us).
He think sticks the boot in, slightly, saying he is
"very worried" that the Snowden revelations have made Britain less safe.
He would, he says, encourage the newspapers "endlessly dallying in this
to think before they act". No prizes for guessing who he means.
An NSA/GCHQ question:
Taylor asks whether the Snowden
revelations have undermined confidence in the intelligence services.
Cameron is quite measured, saying first:
I think what we have to do is make sure we've confirmed the governance procedures for the inelligence services are robust.
Baroness Taylor asks about the public's perception of risk, and how
Cameron's security strategy engages with this to make sure it's not
always a "knee jerk reaction" and is proportionate.
Cameron is
very vague, saying it's partly up to him to give over this message, and
also – he's struggling here – up to "scientists" to explain
probabilities. "Sorry, that's probably not a great answer," he admits.
Harris asks: has the NSC thought about the threat of climate change
and the potential threat to vital infrastructure, for example from
rising sea levels?
Yes, we have, is Cameron's short answer,
and it's probably time for the NSC to look at this again. There is also
specific work done on how climate change could affect infrastructure.
Responding to another Syria question from Lord Harris, Cameron says
it was immediately obvious that the Syria crisis would cause both
regional instability and "extremely worrying" problems with terrorism,
for example Britons and others travelling to and from Syria and becoming
radicalised. This was something the NSC disussed, he confirms.
Harris
adds: how do you assess the various risks? "It's very difficult to
measure up how much you spend on one subject and the respective risks,"
Cameron admits, but at least the NSC examines this and the committee
oversees this process.
Arbuthnot asks: in practice, how were the NCS's decisions on Syria
made? Cameron points out that the current security strategy was drawn up
in 2010, before the Arab Spring, but you must be adaptable. He quotes
the boxer Mike Tyson's maxim, "Everyone's got a plan until they get
punched in the mouth."
Can or should prime minister quote a convicted rapist like this? Well, I suppose if a national newspaper can print a big interview with the same man, then he can.
Updated
Tory MP Mark Pritchard asks whether, in the context of the NSC,
there was ever a case where Cameron had taken a foreign policy decision
rather than his foreign secretary, William Hague. Cameron points out
that in practice prime ministers don't completely leave foreign policy
to the minister and such decisions tend to be consensual.
Yes, it is the NSC we're talking about, as I learn from Murphy's
follow-up question. Is it sufficiently well staffed, he asks? Yes, says
Cameron, and it brings in outside experts as needed. It has done so
recently on issues such as Syria and, before the latest G8 summit, tax
and transparancy, the PM says.
We're back! Another browser – Safari, if you're interested – did the
trick. Labour MP Paul Murphy has just asked a question about how
certain meetings work. I think it's the national security council (NSC),
which would make sense, but I missed that bit. Either way, Cameron's
answer is fairly general, with much vague talk about consensus,
conversations and advice.
Updated
We've hit a technical problem. Sky have moved away from their
coverage of the committtee – in truth it's been some way from gripping
so far – and the Parliament TV player for the session doesn't seem to be
working. I'll metaphorically give the computer and good shake and be
back with you as soon as possible.
The first non-Beckett question comes from Cameron's fellow Tory MP,
James Arbuthnot, and it's a slightly odd one: is it right we spend more
on the winter fuel allowance than on the Foreign Office. Cameron is
unflustered and gives some general chat about the value and great work
of said Foreign Office.
Cameron is now being quizzed about defence cuts, and how this might
affect Britain's position in the world. The PM disagrees, as you'd
expect, saying it's the way money is spent, for example on drones rather
than tanks. There is, he says, overall, "no long-term reduction in
Britain's defence capability and our capacity to stand up for ourselves
in important ways".
Here's a screengrab from Sky of a relaxed-looking Cameron beginning his evidence. David Cameron gives evidence Photograph: /Sky News
Asked by Beckett whether the strategy is too focused on foreign
policy, Cameron says he believes the balance is about right, pointing
out that foreign and domestic issues are often linked. The government
must, he argues, "worry about the blowback from Syria" in terms of
possible radicalisation inside Britain.
The meeting has begun but the parliament TV feed hasn't. Luckily
it's on Sky - for now. Cameron is speaking, saying he is "hugely
enthusiastic" about the national security strategy.
Not long from now, David Cameron will begin giving evidence to the relatively little-known parliamentary joint committee on the national security strategy.
Not the most catchy title, I'll grant you, but stay with us, because
this collection of MPs and peers, chaired by Labour's venerable former
foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, has as its task the scrutiny of, yes, the government's national security strategy.
There is, in case you didn't know, a document of that very name,
produced in 2010 to spell out the potential risks and challenges facing
the country in the coming years, everything from conventional war to
terrorism and cyber attacks to flu pandemics. It's put together by the national security council, comprising ten government members including Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, William Hague and Theresa May.
There's
a revised strategy planned for 2015, and in the run-up to that date the
committee members get their moment in the sun, quizzing the prime
minister in the Boothroyd Room at Portcullis House. You can, all being
well, watch proceedings live here.
This is a temporary spin-off from the colleague Andrew Sparrow's renowned and venerable Politics Live blog, as he's busy covering today's commons debate on immigration.
So, what will Cameron be quizzed about? This is the committee's own promised bill of fare:
The committee is expected to focus on:
• The prime minister’s views on the national security strategy and the
effectiveness of the national security council which he established in
2010;
• The impact that the national security strategy and the
national security council have had on government decision-making in
practice;
• The government’s plans for the next national security strategy
(expected in 2015), and how it will respond to new and changing risks.
Purpose of session:
The session is expected to cover a range of national security
issues,
including the government’s response to events in Syria, the UK’s
relationship with the USA, and MOD decision-making on the future of the
army; and to look at wider national security concerns, including energy
and food security, and ownership of critical national infrastructure.
What will this mean in practice? Well, expect questions on what the
government sees as the changing nature of security threats to the nation
and how these can be best responded to. The 2010 national security
strategy, the ponderously-titled A Strong Britain in an
Age of Uncertainty (you'd be forgiven for surprise if the expectation
was a weak Britain in age of complacency), spelled out that conventional military attack is now actually quite low down the list of anticipated perils. As a Guardian editorial at the time pointed out,
it seems difficult to square such priorities with a military top brass
still wedded to "heavy metal" kit like Trident submarine and aircraft
carriers. So expect some questions on that.It would appear Cameron will also
be quizzed about the possible security implications of the ongoing,
brutal civil war inside Syria. The reference to "ownership of critical
national infrastructure" sounds intriguing, even if you can't imagine
the PM calling for the re-nationalisation of power companies.
Finally,
the "UK's relationship with the USA" could, potentially, see Cameron
asked about the effect of revelations about the work of the US National
Security Agency and Britain's GCHQ in spying on their own and others'
citizens (and leaders) by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Among the committee's members are Malcolm Rifkind, who of course chairs
parliament's intelligence and security committee, and Baroness (Pauline) Neville-Jones, briefly Cameron's minister for security and counter-terrorism.
A
quick added warning: there's 22 members in all, among them ten peers.
The TV feed is unlikely to give names, so forgive me if I'm occasionally
– even routinely – a bit hazy as to who's speaking.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق