Committee questions Government’s refusal to allow scrutiny on national security issues

4 March 2025

A parliamentary committee has questioned the government’s refusal of its requests to scrutinise key aspects of the UK’s national security, in correspondence published today.

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy had asked to hear evidence from the new National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell, as part of its regular work scrutinising the key government role. Every previous NSA has appeared before the committee since the position was established in 2010.

However Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said the Government had not judged the request appropriate, citing “longstanding practice” for evidence to be given by Ministers and Officials rather than serving Special Advisers. Unusually, Mr Powell was appointed to the role of NSA as a Special Adviser rather than a civil servant independent of government.

However, committee Chair Matt Western MP said the committee “does not agree” with the Government’s assertion. He cites the Government’s own Osmotherly Rules, which state that the presumption is for Ministers to agree a request for evidence from any named official, including special advisers.

He also says that Mr Powell is “not an ordinary Special Adviser”, but rather is “at the forefront of discussions with international counterparts”. These discussions include meeting Donald Trump’s own National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and attending Washington DC with the Prime Minister last week.

“The Committee is unanimous in its opinion that the role of National Security Adviser should be subject to direct Parliamentary scrutiny,” the Chair writes, “regardless of the method by which its incumbent has been appointed.”

In the letter, the Chair also rejects the Government’s refusal to continue sharing agendas for National Security Council meetings. These agendas have been provided to the Committee by previous Governments since 2013.

The Chair writes: “If the Government intends to diverge from this long-established practice, I would be grateful if you could explain what has changed since the last Parliament, and how preventing this Committee from having this essential insight corresponds with your statement that the Government is ‘actively pursuing greater transparency with Parliament’?”

Chair comment

Matt Western MP, Chair of the JCNSS, said:

“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 Government’s position appears to depart from convention. 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.”

Further information

Image: House of Commons