Security committee slips under radar

11 Mar 09 | Uncategorized

This is a guest post by Chris Ames

Gordon Brown is pushing ahead with plans for a new parliamentary committee on national security, sparking criticism that he is trying to avoid genuine democratic accountability. As existing backbench committees struggle to get to the bottom of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition and torture, MPs are raising concerns that Brown’s new committee will also find itself misled and censored.

The prime minister confirmed in a written parliamentary answer that he is setting up a joint committee of MPs and lords to monitor the government’s national security strategy. The disclosure has received no media coverage but raises important constitutional issues around accountability and freedom of speech.

Brown told Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay that the government has ‘already had productive consultations with the opposition parties and relevant Select Committee chairs’ and that membership discussions are under way. But MacKinlay, a long-standing member of the commons foreign affairs committee, has questioned the plans, as has Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the all-party committee on extraordinary rendition.

Tyrie fears that a combined committee of MPs and lords will prove unwieldy and lack investigative bite. He says: ‘This looks depressingly like a Gordon Brown smokescreen for avoiding democratic accountability in this area, like so many of the measures he announced when he became prime minister.

‘The last thing we need is more committees, particularly joint committees. What we need is for the intelligence and security committee’s important work to be developed into a full select committee in a way that does not prejudice national security.’

The government has considered giving seats on the new body to the chairs of relevant select committees, although Brown is said to want some genuine backbench representation. But a proposal to reserve a seat for a member of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), which is directly appointed by the prime minister, has raised complaints that the new committee will not be wholly independent of government.

Recent revelations about UK involvement in torture and extraordinary rendition have led to criticism that the ISC was too ready to accept government assurances on these issues.

Last week the committee was criticised for allowing its annual report to be heavily censored by Brown before publication. This censorship is possible because the ISC is not itself a parliamentary committee, but the episode has raised concerns about the freedom that a new body will have to report its findings.

One question that Brown will need to address is whether members will be required to sign the Official Secrets Act. Such a move would run up against Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which is the basis for parliamentary privilege and prohibits any external court questioning the freedom of speech of MPs and lords within parliament.

MacKinlay is worried that Brown’s plan also risks a ‘turf war’ with existing select committees. ‘My concern is about how it will impinge upon the work of existing select committees, including my own,’ he says.

The new committee was mooted in Brown’s first national security strategy, published last March. Brown told MacKinlay that it will be set up ‘in time for it to consider the next iteration of the national security strategy, which will be published before the summer recess’. This confirms that his annual update to the strategy is already behind schedule.

The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the government plans to bring proposals for the new body before both houses of parliament but declined to comment further. It looks as if discussions are at a delicate stage. Brown may want the new committee to give him an easy ride but getting there certainly won’t be plain sailing.